Sitting of 7 March 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered again on Thursday 14 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Income Tax
    Mr. Gallie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in respect of the advantages and disadvantages of maintaining a common income tax banding in each of the countries which comprise the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [17616]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): It would be nonsense for the United Kingdom to have anything other than a single income tax system because different rates of income tax would lead to distortions, complications and additional costs.
    Mr. Gallie: Does the Minister agree that the imposition of an additional 3 per cent. on income tax would cause great anger and confusion for individuals on whom it was
    436
    imposed in any area of the United Kingdom? Does he also agree that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) recognises this and would dearly like to withdraw from Labour's tartan tax?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point—no doubt we shall have a new industry of tax exiles in Carlisle if that comes about. Labour says that it supports the proposals of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, but then tries to move away from that. Labour says that it wants a competitive Scotland; yet it proposes to increase taxes in Scotland that would add £6.10 a week to the average family tax bill. Labour also says that it wants a more competitive and better-off Britain. It is a case of it saying one thing and doing another.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Minister mentioned additional taxes, but he omitted to say that the Government have imposed an extra 20 tax increases on Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Does he accept that the hardship and confusion referred to by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) will be even worse when there are swingeing increases in council tax for residents in Scotland, which is now to be known as a Forsyth tax?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman should look to his own before he criticises us. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made difficult decisions to bring the British economy back under control, and the economy is now doing very well and living standards are rising. When the Labour party was last in power, it disguised its taxation by over-borrowing. Had the Labour party had the same borrowing regime as us, it would have had 10p more on the standard rate of tax.

    Economic Growth and Unemployment
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the current rates of economic growth and of unemployment in Britain; and what are the comparable figures for other European Union countries. [17617]
    Mr. Devlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current level of unemployment; and what assessment he has made of the level relative to those of other European Union countries. [17618]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Britain has enjoyed the strongest recovery of any major European economy, and in the fourth quarter of last year it grew faster than those of Germany, France and Italy. Our unemployment rate is well below the European Union average and, unlike most other member states, it is falling. This demonstrates the advantages of a flexible labour market with low overheads, which the Labour party would destroy by signing up to the social chapter and introducing a minimum wage.
    Mr. Arnold: Did not slavish adherence to the social chapter by the socialist Government in Spain lead to one third of young people being without jobs, and to destruction and defeat in the recent Spanish general election? What would my right hon. and learned Friend

    437
    say to those first world war-style generals who would take Britain down the same path—the so-called new Labour party?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Government have been fighting this battle for 10 years and the results are now beginning to show—compared with those who have the social chapter—particularly in relation to youth unemployment. If we ever had a Labour Government, they would be striving to add overheads to the cost of employing people and would thus destroy jobs. The rest of western Europe wants to emulate us and to start to remove those overheads.
    Mr. Devlin: While the unemployment figures in Britain are decreasing, which is a great pleasure to us all, one of the concerns in my constituency is the continuing difficulty of young people finding jobs. Is not youth unemployment in other major European countries considerably higher than it is in Britain? Will the Minister give hon. Members some figures, so that they can compare the success of the British economy with other economies?
    Mr. Clarke: Our rate of youth unemployment is below the European average. Youth unemployment is 38.2 per cent. in Spain, 26.5 per cent. in Italy and 27.7 per cent. in France. We well remember that the French Government tried to reduce the minimum wage for young people because they knew that it was causing the unemployment. It is a matter of grave concern that young people in my hon. Friend's constituency are still having difficulty getting jobs, but the Labour party would destroy the jobs that some of those young people already have.
    Dr. Bray: The Chancellor is putting the best face that he can on the economy in time for the general election, without much help from Conservative Back Benchers. Is he aware that the figures that he is quoting are short-term and cyclical? Is he satisfied that underlying investment in the economy is sufficient to maintain competitiveness?
    Mr. Clarke: The circumstances for investment are very good indeed, as evidenced by the present state of company balance sheets, enhanced profitability and the prospects of rapidly growing consumer demand. The hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber on Monday; he knows that Conservative Back Benchers share that confidence, as does the business community in this country. The economy is growing and poised to grow faster. This is not just pre-election—the general election is some way away, but the economy will carry on improving all the way from now to the election, as it has done well in the recovery of the past two or three years.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that in tackling growth the key integers of interest rates and inflation are crucial? When the Chancellor meets the Governor of the Bank of England later this afternoon, how will he balance the needs of the two parts of the economy—the industrial sector, which desperately needs an interest rate cut to stimulate investment, and the consumer sector, which the Chancellor says is facing a strong boom? How can he ensure that he gets the balance right without triggering an upsurge in inflation?
    Mr. Clarke: Throughout this recovery, we have had a tale of two economies in this country, with, until recently, manufacturing and exports booming and construction and the retail sector lagging behind. At the moment, as this morning's figures from the Confederation of British Industry survey of the distributive trades show, prospects for the retail sector are extremely good. Manufacturing slowed down at the end of last year, but people remain confident.
    The Governor and I will do our usual weighing of the evidence. The hon. Gentleman must read past minutes to see how we do it. We shall continue to concentrate on our task, and we shall not waste much time congratulating ourselves on our remarkable achievement so far—with the best record of sustained low inflation that the country has had for more than half a century.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: The whole House is familiar with the fact that the German economy has enjoyed enormous advantages for a long time as a result of Germany's remarkable monetary stability, but it also knows that Germany has imposed great handicaps on itself by its social and labour policies. In that context, I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the comments of Hans-Olaf Henkel, head of the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie, to The Daily Telegraph recently. He said:
    "We"—
    the German—
    "have too rigid labour laws. We have too high social costs and taxes. We work the shortest working week in Europe. The German Government spends 50 per cent. of GDP, as opposed to 42 per cent. in Britain. No wonder we have a problem."
    Madam Speaker: Order. Quoting at Question Time is not allowed. The hon. Gentleman should have paraphrased. I am sure that the Chancellor has got the message.
    Mr. Davies: I was trying to ensure that I got it right. Does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that it would be a good idea for us to introduce similar problems into this country?
    Mr. Clarke: I will take the quotation as my hon. Friend's own words as he and I have argued that case often enough and the present position demonstrates that we are right. German unemployment is more than 4 million; ours is coming down towards 2 million. We are creating new jobs in this country; Germany had a negative quarter of growth at the end of the last year and unemployment is increasing yet again.
    In Germany, people know that; people know that in the German industrial community. Throughout western Europe, people know that they must have a flexible labour market of the type that we have here. The old-fashioned party opposite is the only party that does not know and solemnly promises to bring to this country precisely the conditions that people are suffering from in Germany.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Why, then, does Britain have the worst record of job generation of any major industrial country since 1979? Moreover, when job insecurity is rife, when 8.5 million people have suffered a spell of unemployment since the general election and when we

    439
    have 600,000 young people out of work, is not the Chancellor guilty of irresponsible complacency now to abandon the community action programme?
    Why is the community action programme being abandoned? What has the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say to the 40,000 people who, just a year ago, he was boasting would have places on it?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's eloquent question slipped in "since 1979" in order to obtain a comparison; in doing so, it takes advantage of the recession, which the Labour Government caused and which they left to us as their legacy. As we argued on Monday, the figures from 1981 show that our record on growth and employment creation matches the best—it has certainly done so in the past few years. Unemployment has fallen for 29 months in succession.
    The Labour party's so-called jobs strategy seems to concentrate on one scheme, which has been wound up by the Department for Education and Employment. Unemployment has fallen while we have readjusted the schemes. That particular scheme was quite small—I believe that it had 30,000 places—whereas the one-to-one scheme, which is prominent in the plans of the Department for Education and Employment, involves 100,000 opportunities for getting people back to work in a growing economy.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the excellent British performance on unemployment and growth is not due entirely to the magnificent economic management of the Treasury, but also to the fact that many of our friends in the European Union are still members of the exchange rate mechanism and are operating their economies to enable them to join a single currency rather than looking to the needs of their own economies? That is particularly true of France.
    Mr. Clarke: In so far as those countries are pursuing the convergence criteria, if they can achieve low inflation and healthy public finances of the sort that we are achieving, that will enhance their performance and create jobs. Their exchange rates are set by the markets, like anyone else's.

    Construction Industry (National Insurance)
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussion he has had with the Inland Revenue regarding employer national insurance contributions in the construction industry. [17619]
    Mr. Jack: Discussions have taken place between the Inland Revenue Contributions Agency and representatives of the construction industry on matters affecting tax and national insurance contributions—and particularly the status of subcontractors in the industry.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is it not sometimes a good thing to have old-fashioned virtues, such as paying employer national insurance contributions, because of their benefit to the economy—some estimate the figure at £2 billion a year—and also what they mean for the welfare of our people in future years in terms of who shares the burden? Old-fashioned values are not out of place in the modern Labour party.
    Mr. Jack: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, as I know that he takes a particular interest in the needs of those in both the contracting and subcontracting industries. I am aware of what underlies his question; there is sometimes a problem in the contracting industry about identifying who are the genuine subcontractors. The Inland Revenue is working hard on that problem. A new guide has recently been published by the Revenue and the Contributions Agency to assist employers in that task.
    Proposals in the Finance Bill will precurse the introduction in 1998 of an identifier card that will be of particular value to contractors in helping them to identify genuine subcontractors. They will also ensure that the wishes of the hon. Gentleman and myself are fulfilled, and the proper taxation and national insurance deductions are made.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest causes of job insecurity is the total level of unemployment that exists in so many nations across Europe? Does he agree that the structural reforms of the supply side carried out in the 1980s by my right hon. and hon. Friends have created a lower level of unemployment in the United Kingdom, which is acceptable, without causing inflation? Is that not due solely to Conservative policies?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend makes a telling and fine point about the benefits of our supply side reforms. That is why, unlike so many other European nations, unemployment in this country continues to fall.

    Job Insecurity
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects on the economy of increases in levels of job insecurity. [17621]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government are promoting job security by delivering falling unemployment and the fundamentals for sustained growth.
    Mr. Cunningham: Will the Chancellor stop being complacent and tell us what he plans to do for the 137,000 people suffering from negative equity and the 800,000 who are unemployed in the west midlands, a fair proportion of which is in my constituency? Will he stop waffling and tell us what he intends to do?
    Mr. Clarke: With respect, I am not complacent, but confident and optimistic. We are moving in a desirable direction for work security. The Opposition are making completely fanciful use of the figures showing the number of people who changed jobs in recent years. Every year, millions of people move from one job to another. Unfortunately, there are always some people who become unemployed, but half are back in work within six months and the great bulk of them get jobs within 12 months. The stronger the economy becomes, the better that gets. The enterprise economy that we have created is delivering jobs. Labour's proposals would destroy jobs and set us back.
    Sir Jim Spicer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to find an example of real job insecurity, we need look no further than Germany, where, because of the cost of social taxation and other on-going costs that are piled on employers, particularly in the farming community, there is a tendency for farmers to lay off all their workers in September or October and not bring them back until March? That surely is real job insecurity.
    Mr. Clarke: Precisely, but it is just brushed aside by the Opposition. Employers pay social charges of £32 in Germany and £41 in France for every £100 that they pay in wages. The equivalent figure here is only £18, which is why the purchasing power of wages is roughly comparable and we create more jobs. That underlying point cannot be emphasised too often, because it is challenged directly by the Opposition, who would add burdens to employment and set us back again.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not about time we heard some truth about these unemployment figures? The figure is not 2¼ million, as is often parroted by Tory Ministers. More than 700,000 women do not register that they are out of work, 600,000 young men and women are on the slave labour schemes organised by the Government and do not get the dole, and another 500,000 people are claiming other social security benefits. The real truth is that more than 4 million people in Britain are out of work, at a cost of £30 billion to the taxpayer. There is a moral, economic and social argument for getting the jobless figures down. Those are the real figures. People in the real world laugh at the Chancellor when he talks about a feel-good factor, when all they feel is insecurity.
    Mr. Clarke: The Labour party used to peddle that nonsense in the mid-1980s. They continued saying that the employment figures were not really falling when there were labour shortages all over the country all the way into the boom. They need only consult the Central Statistical Office, which is independent of ministerial control, or look at the labour force survey, which is conducted under International Labour Organisation rules, to find the same message, or use the Eurostat figures which are prepared outside Britain as an international comparison. The hon. Gentleman is doing what his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench do—he is burying his head in the sand and advocating policies that would drive unemployment up to the levels of countries which are trying to get rid of the policies that he still advocates.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a flexible labour market is essential to job creation, and that lower taxes on business and less bureaucracy are the key to the long-term future prosperity of Britain and job security for our people?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely. The Government's efforts are all bent to achieve that combination of circumstances, which is largely responsible for the rapid growth of small business and the creation of job opportunities. My hon. Friend and I both know that we have to persist in that. The Germans and the French will make themselves more competitive, get their costs down and come back at us. We are in the lead at the moment; if we create a deregulated economy, lift the red tape from
    442
    business and minimise the costs of employment, our prospects will be better than they have been for a generation.
    Ms Primarolo: Is the Chancellor aware that 2.9 million women have suffered periods of unemployment since 1992? Job insecurity, zero-hour contracts, and temporary and part-time work characterise their employment. Does the Chancellor have a message for women in International Women's Week to demonstrate his commitment to eradicating their job insecurity or will he continue to be frozen in the ice of his own complacency and indifference to women's employment contracts?
    Mr. Clarke: We seem to be having a dialogue of the deaf. I will try to deflate the image of suffering womanhood that is being depicted. The Government are in favour of providing employment opportunities for more women. A higher proportion of the total work force is in employment in this country than in any other European country, bar Denmark. The share of temporary employment in Britain is the lowest of any major European country. Despite an increase since 1993, temporary jobs represent only a relatively small proportion of total United Kingdom employment. The social democratic model in western Europe on which the hon. Lady styles herself has fewer women in work, more women who are not economically active and more temporary jobs than the United Kingdom.

    European Community Budget
    Mr. Hayes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government are taking to counter fraud and mismanagement in the EC budget. [17622]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The Government are at the forefront of the fight against fraud, waste and poor financial management within the European Community. For example, the Madrid European Council in December 1995 adopted the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to examine measures to extend the system of financial penalties, which already applies to agricultural spending, to other sectors such as the structural funds.
    Mr. Hayes: I apologise to my hon. Friend and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not calling them complacent—which is obviously the soundbite of the day—because clearly they are not. Will my hon. Friend tell the people of this country—the majority of whom are not Europhiles or Eurosceptics but Euro-couldn't-care-lesses—that without the Maastricht treaty the European Court of Auditors would not have been strengthened to combat fraud?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. The European Court of Auditors report used to be forgotten shortly after it was produced. At Maastricht we insisted that it be made a full institution of the Community, and its reports are now noted and acted upon. That is a big advance in our attempts to control the European budget.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the Minister aware that the European Court of Auditors now has to produce an annual statement of assurance which provides an opportunity to question it

    443
    rigorously, as the Public Accounts Committee is doing in meeting the individuals concerned? Will he assure the House that the Government will take that process very seriously? It is a new opportunity to press the Court of Auditors about the assurance it provides.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. The statement of assurance is a new weapon. The British Government proposed at Maastricht that the European Court of Auditors should produce a new, comprehensive audit. We have debated that already in Committee, and I assure the House that it will be treated extremely seriously and acted upon.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of countering fraud is by reducing opportunities for it to occur? Cannot the Government assist in that endeavour by fighting for massive reductions in the European Community budget, thereby giving more money back to taxpayers to spend in the way that they, rather the bureaucrats in Brussels, think fit?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We do insist on checks, not just on the quantity of money spent but on the quality of that expenditure. We receive no help whatsoever from the Labour party or from its allies in the socialist group in Europe, which always presses for a higher budget and more expenditure, and takes too little interest in ensuring quality of spending and standing up for the taxpayers in each member state.
    Mr. Darling: Given the importance of the European Court of Auditors, does the Minister share the dismay felt by many people about the findings of the Coopers and Lybrand report regarding the court's inability to control its own spending and to keep tight control over the behaviour of its officials? If the Government want to be at the heart of Europe, what have they done to date to ensure that the Court of Auditors is controlled properly and effectively?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We entirely agree that the Court of Auditors must obey the diktats of financial discipline, whereas the Opposition always want more money spent on all the organs and institutions of the European Community, as well as on the Court of Auditors. Just because money is available, it should not necessarily be spent until we can get value for money. That applies to the Court of Auditors as much as to anything else.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal measures he plans to assist small businesses further. [17623]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): Thriving, growing small businesses are vital for the health of the economy. The last Budget introduced a number of measures to assist small businesses.
    Mr. Steen: In the spirit of deregulation, will the Chancellor consider establishing a penalty system for every Government Department that produces unnecessary
    444
    rules and regulations—perhaps fining them £1,000 per page? Is my hon. Friend aware that 96 pages of rules and regulations are being introduced under the Activity Centres (Young People's Safety) Act 1995, when the Government said that they would have a light touch and introduce the minimum number of rules and regulations? The Government have an opportunity to recoup money from Departments which overspend on rules and regulations and to join the Prime Minister's crusade for fewer rules and regulations. The Chancellor could do that immediately and cut expenditure from the public purse tomorrow.
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend's concern about over-regulation is well known, and I congratulate him on always promoting the cause of deregulation. Over the past nine months, I have used the deregulation route to reduce regulations on building societies, industrial insurance, friendly societies and credit unions, and now to truncate checks. The Central Statistical Office has been asked to reduce its burden on business by 25 per cent. That is not perfect, but I hope that my hon. Friend considers that we have taken a few steps in the right direction.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister consider what fiscal measures could be introduced to help businesses and their employees with the costs of child care?
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Lady makes the real point that all working mothers are looking for child care. Most working mothers prefer a grandma or aunt to look after their children whenever possible, as the child's stability should be paramount. The various nursery education measures that the Government have brought in and are introducing will help. We have assisted with child care in many areas.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that as the majority of small businesses are run by self-employed people, lowering income tax is the best fiscal measure that the Government could possibly introduce? When it comes to deciding which party is the party of small business, the answer must surely be the party that lowers income tax—not the party that cannot make up its mind.
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Budget will reduce taxation, which will benefit small businesses. We also ensure that the burden on small businesses does not increase, as it would under Labour—especially through its proposals for a tax on jobs.

    Family Tax Levels
    Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax the typical family paid (a) at the latest available date and (b) in 1992. [17625]
    Mr. Jack: A family on male average earnings of about £330 a week in 1991–92 is estimated to have paid tax of about £110 a week. By 1996–97 average earnings are likely to have risen to around £400 a week, with tax rising to around £135 a week. But that family should still be about £700 a year better off than in 1991–92, after tax and inflation.
    Mr. Chisholm: Why will the typical family next year pay 34.3 per cent. of its income in tax, when it would have paid only 32.2 per cent. in 1979, according to a parliamentary answer last week? Contrary to the reply of the Financial Secretary to the first question on the Order Paper, that difference has nothing to do with borrowing in the 1970s—which never reached the levels that we have seen in the last eight years—and everything to do with the Conservative party being the party of economic failure and unfair taxation, and of saying one thing on tax before an election and another thing after it.
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Member cannot wriggle off the hook. The average borrowings under the last Labour Government were 7 per cent., but are 2.5 per cent. under this Government. That equates to the equivalent of lop more on the standard basic rate of tax, had the Labour Government had honest taxation and honest borrowing.
    It is no use the hon. Gentleman giving us lessons about the tax burden. His local authority in Edinburgh spent £200,000 on a temple of tyres display and £7,000—wait for this one—on an art exhibition displaying elephant dung, phallic symbols and men having sex in a pantomime horse—and that was the watered-down version.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Regarding taxation, what matters to the average family in my constituency is the rising standard of living that they have had under the Conservative Government. Can my hon. Friend the Minister recall what the average family in my constituency recalls—the stagnation in the standard of living that occurred under the Labour Government in the 1970s? Can my hon. Friend confirm that we do not want that again?
    Mr. Jack: I can certainly confirm that. It is interesting that Opposition Members always want to run away from the fact that, under Labour, real take-home pay grew by a miserly 1 per cent. That is something that everybody should remember. Under the Government, a family on average earnings is expected to be more than £4,500 better off than in 1978–79, an increase of some 40 per cent.

    Taxation Levels
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current levels of taxation. [17626]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Current levels of taxation have been set to ensure sound public finances and to fund the public services that people care about, such as schools, the national health service and the police. The Government are committed to reducing the basic rate of income tax to 20p, when it is prudent to do so.
    Mr. Hall: Despite what the Chancellor says, taxes are higher today than they were under the Labour Government. As a result of the tax increases in the 1992 Budget, and those since, an average family will pay £800 a year more under the Conservative Government. Will the Chancellor confirm that that is why there is a feel-bad factor in the economy and why the Tories cannot be trusted on taxes?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has just explained that that snapshot of 1979 conceals the fact that the Labour Government, on their way out, raised the level of borrowing to 7 per cent. of gross domestic product, which was tax deferred—as far as they were concerned—beyond the election. We now have the lowest basic rate of income tax that we have had for more than 50 years and we shall improve on that record when we get the rate down to 20p, which we shall as soon as we can afford it.
    Mr. Ashby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we can forget about income tax for the moment and concentrate on corporation tax? Corporation tax means jobs and livelihoods. We have the lowest rate of corporation tax in virtually any industrialised nation. We are attracting jobs, and the small businesses that are creating jobs are thriving because of low corporation tax. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree?
    Mr. Clarke: I certainly do, and my hon. Friend is right. The United Kingdom has the lowest rate of corporation tax of any major industrialised nation. It is just 33 per cent., and it was 52 per cent. in 1979 when we took power. We also have a lower small business rate corporation tax, which I reduced again in the Budget. The successful economies in today's world will be low-taxation economies. The Opposition would make this country a high-taxation economy again if they ever came back to power.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Is the Chancellor really so out of touch that he does not understand how angry the British people are at broken promises on tax by the Tories? Each year, the typical British family will be hit by increasing tax, right up to the turn of century. Next year, the typical family will be £670 a year worse off than it was at the time of the general election in 1992.
    Even if the Chancellor is so out of touch with the British people, what about his Back Benchers? Does he not remember the look of disappointment on the faces of his Back Benchers after he gave his Budget speech? It might be said that never, in parliamentary history, have so many waited so long for so very little.
    Mr. Clarke: I think that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was written about some former Budget, not the latest one. In my last Budget, I reduced taxation—not just the standard rate either. I widened the 20p band and raised the threshold, taking some people out of tax altogether. I lowered tax on savings for all standard rate payers from 25p to 20p. We are reducing taxation by cutting public spending while increasing spending on schools, the NHS and the police.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned Government Back Benchers. Labour Members could not even take a view on any of the tax changes—they would not vote one way or the other. A recent survey in Tribune on 24 November 1995 showed that two thirds of Labour Members of Parliament were in favour of higher rates of income tax, which is what they would bring back.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is the most amazing cheek on the part of Labour to criticise, when the last Labour Government had a tax rate of 89 per cent. on earned income and of 98 per cent. on unearned income, and in one year introduced a special levy that brought in 104 per cent. on top slices of income? They even produced an investment income surcharge of 15 per cent., charged on old dears with a bit put aside in building societies. Would that not make even Dr. Goebbels blush?
    Mr. Clarke: I can still recognise among Labour Members a few familiar faces of those who were Ministers in that Government and who defended those levels of tax. They are quite moderate men, but they were succeeded by more left-wing people who would have done much worse had they won in 1983—a lot of them still sit on the Labour Benches.
    Comparing our respective records, one wonders what on earth Labour and the trade union movement pretend to be about. They are in favour of spending and of taxing. That is what they did before and it is what they would do again.
    Mr. Trimble: Let me take the Chancellor back to his boast about corporation tax. Is he aware that the United Kingdom does not have the lowest corporation tax rate in the European Community, because the Republic of Ireland has a corporation tax rate of 10 per cent.? Is he further aware that the UK agencies responsible for trying to attract outside investment consider that not just Northern Ireland but Wales and the west of Scotland are significantly disadvantaged because of that? Should not the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore consider reducing corporation tax further?
    Mr. Clarke: I was not boasting; I was quoting the figures for major industrialised countries. Overall, it is to the advantage of the United Kingdom to let each country set its own tax—we defend that right absolutely. There is no question of qualified majority voting on setting tax rates. Competition between tax regimes usually works to our advantage because we have lower rates of corporate taxation than do any of the major countries on the continent. That, in turn, brings investment here.
    My right hon. Friend has to pay special attention to Northern Ireland, however, where corporate tax rates are undercut south of the border. The Labour party would offer no redress for that. It proposes to give Scotland higher taxes for its work force than the rest of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, would have to pay. So there might be some advantage in that: Scottish industry might be driven over to Ulster if a Labour Government ever implemented their crazy devolution plans.
    Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, under the last Labour Government, earners started paying income tax at 50 per cent. when their earnings reached £9,000, and started paying income tax of 75 per cent. when they reached £15,000? Does not that show what Labour does in government?
    Mr. Clarke: It has always been my misfortune to earn my living outside politics when we have had Labour Governments—a great injustice, that. I well remember the
    448
    high taxation of those days, which rapidly cut into people's incomes. There is absolutely no evidence that Labour's basic approach to taxation has changed. The Opposition seem to be ashamed of their policies now and will not reveal them in detail, but the great bulk of Labour Members look forward to putting taxes back up again.

    Bingo
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the tax laws covering bingo. [17627]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: None.
    Mr. Turner: As a former bingo caller, I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the serious discrimination being felt by the 3 million bingo players in this country at the 10 per cent. tax levied on their enjoyment, as against the lower rate of tax on either pools or racing. That is real discrimination. I should also like to tell him that, up and down the country, bingo callers are now calling "Blair's lair" rather than "Major's den: No. 10."
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Gentleman is being a little too gloomy about the main part of his question, and we shall certainly disappoint him on the last part. He will know from his previous occupation that most bingo clubs are owned by big chains. Their payment of bingo duty went up last year after the introduction of the national lottery, so I do not think that they can be doing too badly.
    Bingo is not quite like betting on the lottery, the football pools or even on horses in a betting shop, because people do it for social and leisure reasons. Therefore, I do not think that the comparison with the lottery is exact. He will know that we are deregulating the industry to allow it to fight back against any threat from any quarter.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Stephen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March. [17646]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a person who has committed a serious violent or sexual crime on two or more occasions must never be allowed to do it again? Does he accept that that is the overwhelming view of all our constituents, who are sick and tired of dangerous criminals being let out, to offend again and again, by out-of-touch judges, some of whom sit in the Court of Appeal?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point forcefully. Our aim is to protect the public from dangerous and persistent criminals. We are concerned to ensure that, for example, repeat rapists are not released from prison if they remain a danger. At present, that can happen, and it is a matter of concern to the public. On those grounds, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is right to proceed with his proposals.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity categorically to deny the lunchtime news reports that the Government are considering taking away all employment rights from millions of people who are employed by small businesses?
    The Prime Minister: We shall have some things to say on Monday about small businesses, but they will certainly not include what was the reported on the news at lunchtime.
    Mr. Blair: Can we—[Interruption.] The proposal, as people will know, was made by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can we take it from the Prime Minister's answer, which I thought was clear, that that proposal is gone, and dead and buried?
    The Prime Minister: I thought that I made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman a moment or so ago. We shall be announcing a number of very attractive policies on Monday, but I have to tell him that that is not one of them.
    Mr. Blair: I congratulate the Prime Minister. The proposal was made two days ago, and now it has been dropped. We welcome that. Since we already have the President of the Board of Trade's letter referring to the Deputy Prime Minister's letter, can the Deputy Prime Minister's letter be published so that we can see what other proposals have been made and whether they, too, are to be denied?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will see the proposals clearly because we shall announce them on Monday. They will be very attractive. I think that small businesses will welcome them. The right hon. Gentleman should remember that small firms create the vast majority of new jobs. They have done so for years past and they will do so in future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that I carry Opposition Members with me.
    There can be no employment rights if there is no employment. We are seeking to maintain a fair balance between the rights of employees and the burdens on employers. We are therefore proposing to reduce or remove unnecessary burdens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I am interested that Opposition Members would like to keep unnecessary burdens. No wonder that in every socialist Government throughout Europe, unemployment increases.
    Opposition Members would like to retain unnecessary burdens. I would like to get rid of unnecessary burdens, and I would welcome some support for that from the
    450
    Labour party. Clearly, there is no support for that from the Labour party; burdens it likes and burdens it would wish to have.
    Sir Marcus Fox: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the opting out of a single currency is of supreme importance to the country? Would it not be damaging—
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Sir Marcus.
    Sir Marcus Fox: Would it not be damaging if other countries ignored this criterion? May I suggest with hope to my right hon. Friend that the issue of a single currency, if introduced, would be one on which we should hold a referendum?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear to the House on previous occasions that I believe that a referendum on joining a single currency could be a necessary step. My position has not changed. I still believe that it might be the right course. At present, the Government are considering the circumstances in which a referendum might or might not be appropriate. We shall tell the House of our conclusions as soon as we have reached them.
    Mr. Ashdown: In view of the Prime Minister's rather different answer to the last question of the Leader of the Opposition, does he agree that we shall never build or strengthen the small business sector by encouraging employers to adopt a hire-and-fire mentality and treating employees as scrapheap labour?
    The Prime Minister: No one is seeking to do that. The right hon. Gentleman should know better than that. We are encouraging a hire mentality. That is why unemployment has fallen while it is rising in other countries. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have order.
    The Prime Minister: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what would create a fire mentality among small and large employers—the sort of burdens that would accumulate under the social chapter, which the right hon. Gentleman would like. Included would be the burdens that would be accumulated under a minimum wage policy, which, again, the right hon. Gentleman would like. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he has a policy change to make, we shall be pleased to hear it. Labour's plans for a minimum wage could destroy thousands upon thousands of jobs, as would the social chapter, and both policies are supported by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are creating jobs, and the Opposition parties' policies would destroy them.
    Mr. Barry Porter: In view of the depressing statement by the Provisional IRA yesterday, where do we go from here?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the proposals that I set out the other day were perfectly clear. Sinn Fein has the opportunity, provided that there is a ceasefire and that it meets the other criteria, of joining in the democratic debate. If it fails to take that option, the debate will not stop. The debate will continue with the constitutional parties. I believe that that is the right way in which to proceed. Were we not to proceed with just the constitutional parties, we would have permitted the IRA to stop the constitutional process. I am not prepared to do that and neither, in my judgment, is any of the constitutional parties.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March. [17647]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Campbell: Is it fair that Camelot is now able to pay out less than £10 to a player with three correct numbers? Bookmakers have to meet their obligations, so why should not the lottery operators do the same out of their obscene profits?
    The Prime Minister: The operators have to meet their obligations. The chances of someone winning the jackpot are much greater than the chances of not being paid £10 for three numbers, as Oflot itself set out this morning. The hon. Lady should know that it was Parliament that decided that the lottery should be administered by an independent regulator. The hon. Lady's party was very keen that that should be the case. The hon. Lady shakes her head. I think that I recall that the Opposition voted that it should be dealt with by an independent regulator. It is for the director general of Oflot to consider how to protect players' interests. That is what he has done. She should direct her question to him.
    Mr. Lamont: In the run-up to the intergovernmental conference, would the Prime Minister like to congratulate the European Commission on the success of its "Interfere in Britain" week? Should the first prize go to the European Court of Justice for its ruling on fishing or to the attack on the brand of Cheddar cheese, or should the golden fleece go to the European Commission's astonishing dawn raid on the Football Association's headquarters? Does the Prime Minister agree that there was never a truer word spoken by the European spokesman yesterday than when he said:
    "We are talking millions of footballs"?
    The Prime Minister: I must say to my right hon. Friend that I did not see that remark. I am rather sorry that I did not. I shall have the opportunity of discussing those matters with the President of the Commission later on this afternoon.
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March. [17648]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gunnell: Has the Prime Minister seen the published explanation of the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for his reluctant vote with the Government on the Scott report, in which he says that he voted because the Prime Minister personally told him that the Ulster Unionists had held a gun to his head and that losing the vote would damage the peace process? Is that true, and, if so, does it square with the Prime Minister's pledge to keep the peace process in Northern Ireland completely separate from intensely controversial issues here at Westminster?
    The Prime Minister: I made it clear from the outset that I shall deal with the peace process on its merits. I believe that that is the way that it should be dealt with—on its merits. That is the way it has been dealt with so far; that is way it will be dealt with in the future. I certainly have not seen any such newspaper reports.
    Mr. Renton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm, with regard to the important speech that he made in Hong Kong on Monday, which has given new confidence there in these last 500 days of colonial rule, that Britain has no current immigration problems with Hong Kong and that the 3 million people who already have visa-free access to this country abide by the rules? They come here as students, tourists or business men and they do not wish to settle here.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can confirm that to my right hon. Friend. In fact, in total, 1.2 billion people already have visa-free access to Britain. We have had no problems whatsoever with visa-free access from Hong Kong and I do not believe that there will be any in future. One of the principal reasons for taking this decision was to provide more assurance to people in Hong Kong, because I believe that such assurance will make it even more likely that they will remain there and continue to ensure that Hong Kong is a success in the future.
    Mr. Hall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March. [17649]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hall: Is the Prime Minister aware that he spoke for the whole nation when he endorsed Chris Patten as the next leader of the Tory party in opposition, because he acknowledged that there was nobody in his Cabinet with leadership potential?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had read what I actually said, he would know that that was not it. In fact I said:
    "There are a number of colleagues with outstanding ability",
    and I am delighted that that is so. What upsets the hon. Gentleman is the fact that there is nobody with outstanding ability on the Opposition Benches.
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March. [17652]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir John Hannam: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the success of his far east tour. Does he accept that it is far better for this country to secure future jobs for British workers than to keep up the continuous carping criticism expressed by the Opposition parties?
    The Prime Minister: What was most striking about the conference in Bangkok was the extent to which growth in the far eastern economies provides business and trading
    454
    opportunities for this country. I think that many people throughout Europe have utterly failed to realise the sheer size and scale of the change that has taken place across Asia, and the opportunities that are provided as a result. During my visit, a number of business deals were struck between companies here and companies in the far east, and I very much hope that there will be more. Such deals provide jobs, security and prosperity for people in this country.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House give us details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 11 MARCH—Estimates Day (2nd allotted day—1st part). There will be a debate on the Spring Supplementary Estimate, Class XIII, Vote 4, Department of Social Security: Administration and Miscellaneous Services. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion relating to Welsh Standing Orders.
At 10 o'clock, the House will be asked to agree the spring supplementary estimates and the defence votes A.
TUESDAY 12 MARCH—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Second Reading of the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 13 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the London Regional Transport Bill.
THURSDAY 14 MARCH—For three hours, motions on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (Continuance) Order and the Prevention of Terrorism (Exclusion Orders) Regulations.
FRIDAY 15 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 13 March to consider European Community document No. 12377/95 relating to equal opportunities for men and women.
For the next week, I can give the following details—of course, on a more provisional basis:
MONDAY 18 MARCH—Opposition Day (7th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Motion relating to the Education (School Premises) Regulations.
TUESDAY 19 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill.
WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 21 MARCH—Debate on the forthcoming intergovernmental conference on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 22 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
Monday 11 March: Estimates Day.
Spring Supplementary Estimate, Class XIII, Vote 4, Department of Social Security: Administration and Miscellaneous Services. Relevant reports: the Fifth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1994–95 on The Work of the Department of Social Security and its Agencies (House of Commons Paper No. 382), the Government's reply thereto (Cm 3148) and the Social Security Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm 2813).
456
Wednesday 13 March:
European Standing Committee B—European Community document: 12377/95, Equal Opportunities for Men and Women. Relevant European Legislation Reports: HC 51-vi (1995–96) and HC 51-ix (1995–96).]
Mrs. Taylor: First, in the light of last night's events, it is entirely proper that the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996 should be brought back for debate as soon as possible, and I am glad that the Leader of the House has facilitated that.
As we now know that the White Paper on the IGC will be published next Tuesday, will the Leader of the House tell us whether there will be a statement to the House that day, and if so, which Minister will make it? And can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the two significant Bills that have not yet come before the House—the Broadcasting Bill and the Family Law Bill—will be debated? When will the Government make it clear whether they intend to reverse their defeats in the House of Lords on the vital issues contained in those two Bills?
In view of the real anger that was felt by Conservative as well as Opposition Members during yesterday's statement on the judgment of the European Court of Justice in relation to the so-called Spanish quota hoppers, and the importance of that judgment to the British fishing industry and the operation of the common fisheries policy, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on an issue that has aroused a great deal of parliamentary as well as public concern?
Following today's publication of the report on the Sea Empress disaster, may we have a debate on whether immediate lessons can be learned from that devastating event, or whether a fuller, independent inquiry is needed, so that there is no question of minimising the impact of one of the worst environmental catastrophes to hit Britain's coastline?
Finally, has the Leader of the House seen the press reports suggesting that the South-East Staffordshire by-election will not be held until 2 May? Given the understanding that writs are moved within three months of a vacancy occurring, will the Leader of the House refute those reports and confirm that, if the three-month limit is to be met, the writ for the by-election must be moved next week?
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Lady's remarks about the Education (School Premises) Regulations. I do not wish to intrude on last night's operation of the usual channels, and, in any event, the hon. Lady will have noted that we have rescheduled the debate on the regulations.
The hon. Lady asked about the intergovernmental conference and the White Paper. I can confirm that I expect the White Paper to be published next Tuesday, 12 March, and that its publication will be accompanied by a statement, which I believe will be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
I cannot yet give dates for debates on the Broadcasting and Family Law Bills. The Government are, quite properly, considering matters that have been the subject of debate and, indeed, decision in the House of Lords.
As for Factortame and the common fisheries policy, I cannot add to what was said yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

457
Food. My right hon. and learned Friend indicated, however, that the Government would seek to raise those matters, and I mentioned the debate on the forthcoming IGC in my statement.
A special bulletin containing interim findings relating to the Sea Empress was indeed issued today, but that, of course, is not the report of the full inquiry, which I understand will be published as soon as possible. It may be more appropriate to think in terms of a debate at that later stage.
As I have said on a number of occasions, the by-election is not a matter for me, but I have no doubt that the hon. Lady's words have reached the ears at which they were directed.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: May we have a debate soon on the future of the constitution? My right hon. Friend knows of my interest in constitutional matters, but it has been sharpened lately by events such as yesterday's Labour party U-turn on the question of fundholders. We are rapidly reaching a point at which not a single Opposition policy was not once one of ours. As far as I can see, there is no constitutional precedent for that in this century.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend may well be right, but I have no plans at present to schedule a debate on the constitution. Perhaps he can find other ways of ventilating his views.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I return to the subject of deregulation of employee protection? If the Government are to make a substantial statement on Monday about changes that will affect small businesses, will the Leader of the House give an absolute assurance that that statement will be made by the President of the Board of Trade, in the House of Commons and nowhere else?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said several times—quite clearly, I thought—during the exchanges a few moments ago.
Mr. John Carlisle: I preface my question by declaring that I own and drive a Vauxhall motor car, I sell Vauxhall motor cars to hon. Members on both sides of the House and I represent many thousands of Vauxhall workers in and around my constituency.
Could we have a debate next week on the motor trade, so that we can highlight the massive injection of cash—some £700 million—that General Motors is proposing to put into the Luton plant and into Ellesmere Port? Does not that give the lie to the idea that we are not a prospering industry? There are tremendous investment opportunities in this country, which is a rather different picture from that painted by the whingers and whiners on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Newton: While I cannot promise a debate, I can say that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is due to answer questions next Wednesday. I certainly endorse the latter part of my hon. Friend's remarks. That investment is another example of this country's increasing and very notable capacity to attract investment from overseas.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Leader of the House go a little further in relation to the school premises regulations debate on Monday week? It is technically a prayer and, if there are Divisions beforehand, we may not get the full hour and a half. Will he consider moving a motion to allow the full hour and a half that the topic deserves?
Mr. Newton: I thought that what I had announced was a remarkably conciliatory gesture, which I had hoped would be acknowledged by the Opposition Members with whom I have had discussions. The hon. Gentleman should not push his luck.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why there is some uncertainty in the public mind about the Government's attitude to things European is that we seem to be so reluctant to have debates on the subject? In particular, is he aware that there is great concern about the way in which the European Court of Human Rights operates, and how the convention operates, and of the strength of feeling that it should not operate at all? At the very least, should we not have a fully fledged debate, in Government time, on the future of the European Court of Human Rights?
Mr. Newton: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that recently—I think, yesterday morning—there has been some debate on that topic, to which I am sure he paid close attention. I currently have no plans for a debate in Government time, but I shall, as always, bear his request in mind.
Mr. David Winnick: Arising from the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), why are the Government so reluctant to allow the people in a west midlands constituency to express their views about this Government? Will he tell the responsible Member—the Government Chief Whip—that it is quite disgraceful for people in that constituency to be denied parliamentary representation, simply because the Government are terrified of the by-election, as they know which way it is likely to go?
Mr. Newton: I do not accept in any way the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Beyond that, I cannot add to what I said a few moments ago.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate so that we can review the understanding between the House and the judiciary, whereby we do not criticise it and, apparently, it does not criticise us? He may have noticed that the understanding has broken down slightly in recent days. Does he agree that it is historically nonsense and constitutionally dangerous for anyone to suggest that elected Members of Parliament should not have the right to decide on sentencing policy and on matters of law and order? If we debated that issue, perhaps we could expose judges to the fresh winds of public opinion.
Mr. Newton: While, of course, the Lord Chief Justice is entitled to his views, so, too, are the police, the public and my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is notable that police superintendents very recently said that they totally support the Home Secretary's proposals.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May we have a debate on early-day motion 568?
[That this House notes with grave concern that the principle of free health care on demand is being severely undermined by the lengthy periods which people have to wait for NHS treatment, compared to the speed with which private treatment can be arranged and that this places unfair pressures on many people who can ill-afford such fast-track treatment; believes that this is illustrated by the case of 11 year-old Daniel Eden of Wingerworth, whose severe headaches and sinuses kept him away from school for a considerable period, at a crucial stage in his academic development, and whose parents faced an invidious choice in either waiting many months for treatment, while their son suffered and remained away from school, or paying to have almost immediate private treatment; strongly condemns the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health whose response to representations from the honourable Member for North East Derbyshire was that Daniel's parents, rather than the health authorities, should have used avenues to chase up more rapid health treatment; and further condemns the anodyne statement from the Minister that it is for the individual to decide whether or not to seek private health care, as revealing that he is completely out of touch with the real world in which the prospect of months of delay forces many people, who have funded the NHS through their taxes, to pay twice for treatment.]
Why is it that consultants offer private treatment to many people who are seeking treatment in national health service hospitals, and that people are often pushed into accepting it, to deal with the medical crisis in their family? Why should people be expected to pay twice for services—through national insurance contributions and then privately?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that access to NHS treatment is determined by clinical priority. His remarks do not allow for the fact that NHS patients requiring emergency or urgent admission are given the highest priority.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will there be an opportunity in the not too distant future to debate in general the relationship between direct labour organisations and local authorities, and in particular the auditor's report on Lib-Lab Cambridgeshire county council, which, as has been pointed out, has lost nearly £2 million in that connection, which could well have been used for schools, libraries or fire services, or even been given back to the hard-pressed council tax payer?
Mr. Newton: That sounds like another very good idea, but I cannot promise such a debate in Government time; perhaps my hon. Friend might seek to catch your eye, as it were, Madam Speaker, on a Wednesday morning.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on the steps that the Government should be taking following the horrendous terrorist attacks in Israel in the past two weeks, and in particular on the allegations that this country is used as a haven by terrorists from other lands? I raised that matter with the Home Secretary and was pleased that he said that he is determined that this country should not be used as a base for promoting terrorism overseas in any way, but he has refused an
460
inquiry. There should certainly be a swift inquiry; it is not good enough to rely on the Lloyd inquiry, which is not even due to complete its work until the autumn.
Mr. Newton: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the positive spirit in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary replied to him. It is certainly the case that the British Government will not hesitate to take action against individuals involved in terrorism where any evidence of their involvement emerges, and whatever their immigration status. The hon. and learned Gentleman can be assured that my right hon. and learned Friend and the entire Government take the matter very seriously.
Sir Teddy Taylor: May we have a debate next week on the growing practice among Ministers of leaving long delays in answering straightforward and uncomplicated priority written questions? To cite just one example, I sought to ask a question a fortnight ago on whether the Government had any plans to change the arrangements for party political broadcasts. I understand that there may be an interest one way or the other, but I see no reason for not giving a straightforward answer to such a simple question.
Mr. Newton: I shall look into the point that my hon. Friend raises.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: As the Prime Minister has not had time to make a statement today on his far east trip, will the Leader of the House ensure that he does so, because the House would like to hear what the Prime Minister did on that visit and ask questions about it?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend did indeed refer to one aspect of what he said and did on that trip with, I thought, general approval from the House. I can assume only that the hon. Gentleman was not listening or has not been reading the newspapers recently.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on trade and industry, which would not only allow us to highlight the Government's excellent policies in that respect, but answer a very intriguing question—whether the Opposition have a shadow trade and industry spokesperson? It may not have escaped people's notice that during the recent debate on the Scott report, which was so excellently led by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the Labour party had to bring on a substitute.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) will read my hon. Friend's remarks. Clearly, arrangements as to who speaks on Opposition Benches are not a matter for me.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Has the Leader of the House seen the report prepared by the Health and Safety Executive, which shows that a massive investment is needed in Railtrack to meet basic safety standards? The report follows revelations last year in the Hesketh report, that three quarters of the £170 million programme of investment in signalling has been shelved by Railtrack or delayed. Will the Leader of the House assure us that there will be a full debate in the House on Railtrack, in which hon. Members can freely air the investment liabilities

461
before the Government publish the prospectus for the flotation of Railtrack, so that potential investors know what they are buying into?
Mr. Newton: There have already been quite a lot of opportunities, over a long period, to debate those matters. Therefore, I do not plan to make further provision for such a debate in Government time in the near future. On the investment position, one of the aims of the proposals is to improve effective investment in the industry, and there is every sign that that will happen.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on early-day motion 564 next week?
[That this House deplores the pressure upon Ealing Council by a Labour councillor to house labour voters in a property to which they have no entitlement; further deplores that councillor's written statement that the same Labour Council should be building up Labour Party support in his ward by manipulation of the housing waiting list; supports the fury of people on Ealing Council's housing waiting list who regard this cheating as depriving them of the council home they need; and further regrets that Ealing Council have lost the file relevant to the case in advance of an official enquiry in this scandal.]
Such a debate would enable me to bring before the House the complaints of a large number of my constituents who are on the housing list. They object to a Labour councillor putting pressure on Ealing council to put Labour voters into council properties at their expense. I refer also to an untrue statement by a Labour Member, who said that the leader of Ealing Labour council took immediate action once the matter was drawn to his attention. That incident occurred last May and was brought to public notice only two weeks ago by the Conservative members of Ealing council. No action had been taken by the Labour council in all those months, and my constituents are furious.
Mr. Newton: I understand that there is an independent inquiry into those matters, and I am sure that the people of Ealing will be extremely interested in its findings.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 554?
[That this House notes the current financial difficulties of the Conservative Party; notes the extraordinary efforts being made by the Conservative Party Board of Treasurers and others to raise sufficient moneys to adequately fund the next general election campaign; notes the reluctance of both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to reveal the identity of previous current and potential donors whom the Prime Minister will be meeting in Hong Kong; questions whether issues of party funding should be raised during the course of a publicly funded visit; notes the appointment of Mr. Leonard Steinberg last year as a member of the Conservative Board of Treasurers and the fact that following publication of the Green Paper on casinos, bingo clubs and advertising of commercial gambling the price of shares in Stanley Leisure plc rose from 372 pence on
462
Monday 26th February to 435 pence at close of trading on Thursday 29th February; notes that Leonard Steinberg's holding in Stanley Leisure rose by £7.8 million pounds in four days and asks Mr. Steinberg to make a public statement giving an assurance that no part of his windfall gain will find its way into the coffers of the Conservative Party; reaffirms the need for an enquiry into the need for transparency over party funding; and calls for an enquiry by the Stock Exchange Market Regulation Department into the 9 per cent. increase in the share price during the five week period immediately prior to the announcement of the Green Paper.]
The motion shows how Mr. Leonard Steinberg of the Conservative Board of Treasurers managed to make £7.8 million in four short days after the publication of a Green Paper. In the light of that, should we not debate party political funding? Could the reason why the Prime Minister has not come to the House to talk about Hong Kong be that he is frightened that he will be asked questions about whether he met Conservative party contributors who might contribute towards the next general election?
Mr. Newton: I am glad to see a smile on the hon. Gentleman's face at the end of his question, to which the answer is no.
Mr. Phil Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend take note of the comments made today by Opposition Members about small businesses? Will he consider a debate on those issues, particularly the Scottish aspects, including the tartan tax and the threat of lifting rate capping on non-domestic rated properties?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right, as is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to suggest that the policies advocated from almost every quarter on the Opposition Benches would be extremely damaging to small businesses. The Government's policies are designed to help such businesses, and I shall bear in mind the request for such a debate.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will there be time for a debate on Post Office finances next week? A parliamentary answer to me on 25 January revealed that the Duchess of York had been illicitly using freepost for more than three years. Surely the curtain of secrecy should be lifted on the way in which postal users subsidise the royal family's use of the post. Is it not wrong that pensioners and other people on low incomes pay for up to 50 rich royals to freeload in that way? Are there any proposals for the Duchess of York to pay back her illicit use of those freebie opportunities?
Mr. Newton: I have no plans for such a debate.
Mr. David Congdon: While I recognise that the debate on the IGC White Paper, which my right hon. Friend announced earlier, provides an opportunity to debate a whole range of issues concerning Europe, given the growing tendency of the European Court to pass judgments that laws passed democratically by the House are illegal, will he consider finding time for a debate on the sovereignty of the House, because it is of fundamental and constitutional significance?
Mr. Newton: That question is a curious echo of the one asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) in relation to a debate on the constitution. At the moment, I shall rest on the debate that I have already announced in respect of the IGC.
Mr. Greg Pope: The Leader of the House may be aware of early-day motion 559, regarding redundancies among lecturing staff at Accrington and Rossendale further education college.
[That this House notes with extreme concern the number of lecturers being made redundant at Accrington and Rossendale FE College and the consequent disruption of students' courses and loss of educational amenity; further notes that this disgraceful state of affairs is being repeated at further education colleges in other parts of the country; believes that the root cause of this scandal is the funding mechanism put in place by the Further Education Funding Council at the behest of the Government following the incorporation of the colleges; and calls on the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to intervene immediately to ensure proper funding of existing further education courses, an end to redundancies amongst academic staff and the restoration of public confidence in the further education sector.]
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will join me in expressing concern about those redundancies and the consequent disruption to students' courses. He must be aware that that position is being repeated in FE colleges throughout the country. Will he therefore find time for a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House, to discuss the funding mechanism for further education colleges?
Mr. Newton: There are some attractions in such a debate, because I judge that the Government's policies towards further education have been a very considerable success—that is certainly the view of the colleges with which I have a connection. Beyond that, I would say simply that it is for colleges to manage staffing levels in accordance with their needs and student numbers, and that Government funding for further education continues to increase.
Dr. Robert Spink: As a statutory instrument has been laid concerning the storage of frozen human embryos, the effect of which will be to increase the maximum time that those embryos can be stored from five years, will my right hon. Friend please find time for a debate on that subject, from which fundamental, and contentious issues arise? Although many hon. Members
464
on both sides of the House would agree with the extension of the time, they would want to discuss the moral issues that arise.
Mr. Newton: I note the point that my hon. Friend makes, which might also be made by one or two—perhaps more—of my hon. Friends and perhaps other hon. Members. I shall bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the Prime Minister is not going to make a statement about his trip to Hong Kong and about how much money he gathered in for the Tory party when he met business people there, will he ensure that figures showing the amounts are placed in the Library, so that everyone can see exactly how much was obtained for the Tory party for the next general election?
Will the Leader of the House take up the point that I raised on Monday 4 March with Madam Speaker, when I called for a debate on the future of the monarchy and Madam Speaker kindly suggested that it would be up to the Leader of the House to move the appropriate motion? Will he move that motion?
Mr. Newton: I think that I indicated last week, and I am happy to indicate again, that I have no plans to do so.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on early-day motion 584?
[That this House condemns the Iranian government's continued persecution of adherents to the Baha'i faith, a persecution which has resulted in 201 deaths and 15 disappearances since 1979, the current imprisonment of five Baha'is held because of their religious beliefs, the continued confiscation of Baha'i personal and community property, the dismissal of Baha'is from employment on purely religious grounds, the denial of higher education to Baha'i youth and the general denial of civil rights to adherents of that faith; and calls on the United Kingdom Government, the European Union and the United Nations to pursue all available means to effect a change in the Iranian government's treatment of members of the Baha'i religion.]
Does my right hon. Friend believe that it is wrong that, at this stage in our civilisation, individuals in Iran should be persecuted because of their religious faith? It is intolerable to all decent-minded people that Iran should be living in the middle ages rather than the 20th century.
Mr. Newton: Of course, I endorse my hon. Friend's general point about persecution of people for their religious views, and we do indeed deplore the continued persecution of the Baha'is in Iran. We and our European partners will continue to express our deep concern about that to the Iranian Government and in the United Nations at every suitable opportunity.

Construction Industry Training Board
3.57 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am extremely grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to raise this matter. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific matter that requires urgent consideration, namely,
"the relocation of the construction industry training board."
I know that this afternoon the House is discussing equal rights for women, but I received some devastating news in my constituency this morning, when the construction industry training board announced that it would be relocating its headquarters out of my constituency, with the loss of 300 jobs. The matter is specific to my constituency because it is a rural area, and in such areas unemployment is high.
You should be aware, Madam Speaker, that the CITB is not like Wimpey or ICI; it is not a private sector organisation. It is governed by Parliament, by statute, and it is answerable to the Minister. Parliament sets the levy for the CITB and therefore the board is accountable to Parliament.
It is especially distressing—the feeling among staff at the CITB is rage and betrayal—that there has been absolutely no consultation with staff. The chairman and the chief executive of the CITB did not bother to consult me or to consult staff. I feel equally let down. Moreover, the chief executive, Sir Clifford Chetwode, did not even have the decency to go up to Bircham Newton in my constituency and announce in person the havoc that he is wreaking among 300 families in my constituency.
466
One reason that Sir Clifford Chetwode gives is the so-called Bircham Newton factor. He says that management in my constituency is below average; there is a shortage of skills and he cannot obtain top-class middle management. That is a dreadful indictment of my constituency. If household name firms in my constituency such as Dow Chemicals, Bespak and Porvair can obtain top management, why cannot the construction industry training board? If there is a problem with the management of the CITB, it has nothing to do with staff in my constituency, but everything to do with the people in London—Sir Clifford Chetwode and Ted Wilmot—who are not showing the leadership required; the fault lies with them. That is why I feel strongly that the Minister should come to the House this afternoon, and there should be an emergency debate.
The Minister must know about the grave situation. I am aware that he cannot tell the construction industry training board what to do, but he must know, and be told, what is happening; he must answer to the House. If the relocation goes ahead, it will cause devastation to 300 families in my constituency. There is a grave sense of betrayal, and I feel strongly that, however important this afternoon's business is, this subject is even more important.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have to respond to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). If hon. Members make comments in the House, a response must be given.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. As he knows, I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
4 pm
Mr. William Cash: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of which I have given advance notice to the Clerk of the House. On 5 March, the European Court made a judgment relating to fishing and other matters, which has serious constitutional implications for Parliament's supremacy. Will you take account of the fact that, under the judgment, there appears to be a determination to assert the system under which the treaties operate and to imply that it would be impossible for this House to amend the European Communities Act 1972? That is the Act from which the European Court of Justice obtains its jurisdiction, so that it can give decisions about legal matters arising from directives. If that judgment was to be assumed to refer to the 1972 Act as well, would you reassert Parliament's supremacy?
Madam Speaker: I understand from the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks that he is about to write to me on the subject—perhaps that is the way to proceed. I shall certainly consider the issue carefully and give my response. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, but I should like to draw his attention to the debate on the intergovernmental conference that is to be held on Thursday 21 March, when he might seek to catch my eye. I shall, of course, look at his letter when he writes to me.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you be prepared to advise the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on the extremely important issue that he raised? I am sure that my constituents in Maryport would wish to extend to him support for his campaign to save 300 jobs—
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman knows full well how to pursue the matter. If he comes to my office, I shall ensure that he receives every help and support. He knows very well how to proceed.
Mr. Ray Powell: This is a point of order for the Chair.
Madam Speaker: I am delighted to hear it.
Mr. Powell: I listened to the reply that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) regarding a debate on the monarchy. It was your suggestion, Madam Speaker, that the matter should be raised by the Leader of the House.
468
In view of the fact that he has said today that he has no intention of allowing the subject to be raised, would you give a ruling or advice to hon. Members on how the matter can be raised?
Madam Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman is quite incorrect. I made no such suggestion. I was asked quite properly whether it was in order for the House to debate such a motion. I gave the correct answer: yes, of course it is, with a properly drawn substantive motion from the Government or the Opposition. That was my response and it still stands.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I have your guidance on the proper issues for consideration on motions for the Adjournment of the House? We considered the Scott report last week. In the week after next, we shall debate the intergovernmental conference on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Surely such momentous issues—especially European issues—should be considered on proper motions that can be amended, so that the House can take a decision on them.
Madam Speaker: Those matters should be resolved through the usual channels. The shadow Leader of the House is on the Front Bench and has no doubt noted what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CHILDCARE (LOCAL PROVISION)
  Ms Judith Church, supported by Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Miss Kate Hoey, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Jon Trickett Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Hugh Bayley, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Stuart Bell and Mr. Tony Worthington, presented a Bill to make provision for local implementation of a national childcare strategy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 April and to be printed. [Bill 80.]
  CHILDMINDERS
  Ms Margaret Hodge, supported by Ms Tessa Jowell, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Stephen Timms, Ms Glenda Jackson, Miss Kate Hoey, Mrs. Bridget Prentice, Mr. Keith Hill, Ms Ann Coffey, Ms Jean Corston and Ms Judith Church, presented a Bill to promote standards of care and education for young children provided by childminders through the establishment of minimum qualifications, access to training, minimum wages and conditions with a high-quality framework for those childminders working with children in their early years: 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 81.]

  Women (Equal Opportunities)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  4.5 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): I am particularly pleased to open this afternoon's debate to mark International Women's Day tomorrow. It provides an excellent opportunity for the House to debate those issues which affect women—and men, too—and for me to highlight the Government's achievements in promoting the status of women.
  May I compliment you, Madam Speaker, on your appearance on the media today? It was a rare appearance to honour International Women's Day, in which you set the tone for our debate this afternoon. It was one of dignity and great assurance, and I hope that it will continue throughout our proceedings.
  I am delighted to welcome to the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), who is Government co-chairman of the Women's National Commission. She will be replying to the debate.
  I want to examine the progress that has been made for women in Britain and pay tribute to the millions of women who bring up our children, run our homes, protect our nation and contribute to our economy. As the co-chairman of the Women's National Commission is alongside me, it seems fitting for me to begin by acknowledging the work of that organisation.
  The WNC is an important source of advice to the Government on women's issues. It comprises representatives of 80 leading national women's organisations. The considerable time put in by WNC members to the work of the commission is entirely voluntary and unpaid. I am sure that the House will join me in thanking them for the high quality of their reports on many important matters.
  This year, we witness a particular milestone, because the Equal Opportunities Commissions for Great Britain and Northern Ireland celebrate their 20th anniversaries. The full achievement of equality between men and women might have meant that we could announce the abolition of either commission, but I am afraid that is not the case. Both commissions still have much valuable work to do in promoting the equality of the opportunities for women—and men.
  I am pleased to announce that, this year, we are strengthening the commissions. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has today announced the reappointment of Kamlesh Bahl as chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome that announcement. The EOC has undergone significant management changes in the past three years.
  Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Minister take this opportunity to tell us what the Government's position will be on the vote that took place in the House of Lords last week regarding pension splitting at the time of divorce? It is a good time for her to announce the
  470
  Government's support for the amendment, thereby making many women who have been adversely affected by divorce settlements very happy.
  Mrs. Gillan: I shall not comment specifically on matters in another place, but I shall return to that issue in the course of my speech.
  We are strengthening the commission, arid I am delighted to announce the reappointment of Kamlesh Bahl. Mrs. Bahl's appointment will enable her to consolidate the changes within the EOC. Hon. Members will know that in February we appointed Mrs. Elizabeth Hodder as an extra deputy chairwoman. We are also about to appoint a Welsh EOC commissioner, increasing the number of commissioners to 13—more than there have been for some years.
  Mr. Peter Hain: Has there been any consultation in Wales about that appointment? Will it be another Conservative placement that is totally unrepresentative of the Welsh population?
  Mrs. Gillan: I hope that the EOC commissioners will note the hon. Gentleman's attack on their position. He knows that consultation takes place, and that those appointments are made according to the strict propriety that governs all public appointments today. I thought that he would welcome the appointment of a commissioner from Wales, but obviously I was wrong.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: As more women are in employment than ever before, women's wages are closer than ever to those of men, and there is significant child care provision, will my hon. Friend tell me what else the EOC has to do?
  Mrs. Gillan: The Equal Opportunities Commission has a statutory responsibility to protect the rights of men and women in this country. Hon. Members will be familiar with a recent case in which the EOC advocated equality for men.
  The EOC has received Government grants for all 20 years of its existence. I am pleased to announce that, earlier this year, I awarded a grant of more than £250,000 to the EOC to enable it to update its technology. That substantial sum demonstrates in the clearest way possible the importance that the Government attach both to the commission and to equality between the sexes. The Northern Ireland Equal Opportunities Commission has received a 4 per cent. increase in its funding for 1996–97.
  In the past 16 years, the Government have achieved much in bringing women's issues to the forefront of national debate, and in pursuing policies that benefit women in all walks of life. In 1981, we introduced the British Nationality Act, which for the first time allowed women who were British citizens—whether married or not—to transmit their citizenship automatically to their children born abroad. In 1984, we introduced the severe disablement allowance, for the first time making it available to married women on the same basis as other claimants.
  We introduced the Sex Discrimination Act 1986, which makes it unlawful to force women to retire earlier than men, and also removes restrictions on women's hours and times of work. In 1990, we introduced independent

  471
  taxation, and replaced the married man's allowance with the married couple's allowance. In the same year, we also introduced the provision of tax relief for workplace nurseries. We have put women's issues at the forefront of Government thinking by establishing a Cabinet sub-committee on women's issues.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: During Treasury questions, I asked the Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight), what fiscal incentives would be introduced for small businesses, and I received a less than satisfactory response.
  The Minister will be aware that workplace nurseries are often a benefit of larger companies, which find it viable to provide them, but not of small businesses. Does the Minister have any plans to help small businesses, on which 75 per cent. of the work force are based?
  Mrs. Gillan: I had the advantage of observing my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary answer the hon. Lady, and I entirely agreed. My hon. Friend gave an extremely satisfactory reply.
  Ms Judith Church: Does the Minister support the blueprint produced by Employers for Childcare for a proper national child care strategy, which this country desperately needs, and early-day motion 582, which a number of hon. Members signed yesterday?
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady should know that the Government have an excellent child care record. A further £12.5 million is going into the out-of-school child care initiative. The hon. Lady was present at a press conference I attended the other day, where we launched a new video on child care provision. I thought that the hon. Lady's presence was in support of the Government's initiative.
  Ms Church rose—
  Mrs. Gillan: I will refer to child care provision again later, when the hon. Lady will have another opportunity to comment.
  Two years ago, the Government took the initiative to increase the number of women in public appointments, from 23 to 30 per cent. This morning, I had the pleasure of seeing the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) speaking on television about that issue. I understand that the Liberal target is for women in 30 per cent. of public appointments. The Government have exceeded that target, so perhaps the hon. Lady will have to rethink her policies. The Government's policy was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): Central Government, employer associations and trade unions all realise that there is more to do. Would it not be sensible to bring the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress together, to encourage their respective memberships to do better? I cite as an example, without criticism, the National Union of Journalists, which has only one woman on its executive council.
  Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I am always struck by the absence of the fairer sex in the Press Lobby. Perhaps the press will take notice and look
  472
  to appointing more women journalists to cover the proceedings of the House. If that were done, perhaps our proceedings would be reported more fairly than hon. Members on both sides of the House consider they are.
  Ms Jean Corston: What happened to the Conservative party target that was promoted by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), for women to account for 50 per cent. of Conservative candidates at the next general election?
  Mrs. Gillan: We differ from Opposition Members on that issue, as the hon. Lady knows well. We have 23 new women candidates already, and they were selected on merit. They will be supplemented by the lady Members on this side of the House who will be seeking re-election. We have always made it clear that we expect women to enter the House on merit, not through positive discrimination.
  In a previous debate on women's issues, I told the House that, in my view, positive discrimination was an insult to all lady Opposition Members. It is clear to me that all women Members of Parliament entered the House on merit. Positive discrimination does nothing to help the cause of women. The tribunal judged that that approach was discriminatory against men. No right hon. or hon. Member would want to achieve anything by discriminating against men.
  Ms Church: Will the Minister confirm to the House today that, of the 23 Conservative candidates in the 658 constituencies that will be fought at the next election, only four have been selected in seats currently held by Conservative Members? Will she also confirm that, after the next general election, there will be fewer women Conservative Members than there are at the moment—and there are not very many now?
  Mrs. Gillan: The numbers of lady Members in the House are representative of the population, and make up for their lack of numbers by their abilities. I am sure that the hon. Lady's expectations will not be fulfilled, because there will be another Conservative Government, so, by my calculations, all 23 of those women candidates will be returned here in a landslide victory.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will my hon. Friend join me in sympathising with women Opposition Members who have labels hung round their necks saying that they got here only by fiddling the rules? It has been demonstrated how much upset they have caused to their male colleagues. Is it not better, as my hon. Friend has said, to get here on our merits, not because we have dodged the rules?
  Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend is undoubtedly here on her merits, and has provided a fine example for all of us. I agree with her that it is important that women achieve their positions by merit. Positive discrimination is not the way forward, and, despite the cries of protestation from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, I feel sure that they agree.
  Ms Eagle: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Gillan: I have given way enough, and I wish to make a little progress. I am only on page two, and I have several pages to go.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Gillan: I think I might give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Porter: We should get on to a serious point. I am a most unlikely person to take part in a debate on women's rights, and I feel somewhat overwhelmed by the serried ranks on the Opposition Benches.
  I heard on the radio the other morning about an anomaly that relates to working women who have disabled husbands at home. Apparently, the women do not get a care allowance, but, if it is the other way round and a working husband has a disabled wife, he gets an allowance. As that information was on the BBC, it must be true. To put the situation right would cost about £2 million, and that is not a great deal of money. As we will spend more money on strengthening—if we can call it that—the Equal Opportunities Commission, we might have a look at that anomaly. Does my hon. Friend agree?
  Mrs. Gillan: My hon. Friend's remarks are most apposite for this debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will take note of my hon. Friend's remarks, and perhaps will come back to him on another occasion.
  I mentioned the progress that women have made, and the 30 per cent. of public appointments that are now held by women. We have made other changes that have helped women.
  The introduction of the national curriculum in England and Wales has meant that girls learn the same core subjects as boys. In fact, girls have now overtaken boys in GCSE standard grade science and mathematics achievements.
  The Government have also put a strategy in place to prevent premature deaths and ill health, including specific priorities and targets for women's health, covering breast and cervical cancer, smoking and alcohol.
  Women play a substantial part in our labour market. The Government fully recognise the crucial and increasing role that women play in the economy. Women now make up a larger proportion of the labour force—44 per cent. in 1994, compared with 37 per cent. in 1971. Some 45 per cent. of women in employment worked part-time in 1994, an option that many women with family responsibilities prefer.
  Between 1985 and 1995, the economic activity rate for women with at least one child aged under five rose from 42 per cent. to 52 per cent., and the number of self-employed women has risen by 81 per cent. since 1981.
  There has also been good news on the pay gap: it has narrowed to 20 per cent., its lowest ever. Since 1979, women's earnings have increased faster than men's, and the pay gap has narrowed in six of the past seven years. I am sure that all hon. Members hope that it will narrow still further as women progress to more senior positions in a wider range of occupations.
  Mrs. Helen Jackson rose—
  Mrs. Gillan: I have already given way quite often, and I should like to make some progress. I shall be revisiting these themes later.
  474
  The Government have put in place a number of measures to help women in the marketplace. For instance, family credit now helps more than 600,000 families to be better off in work than out of work and claiming benefit. This help is worth over £50 a week on average, and in the overwhelming majority of cases it is paid directly to the woman—including more than 250,000 lone parents.
  We have been building on the success of this measure. In April 1992, we reduced the qualifying hours for family credit to 16, extending help to more part-time workers. That has been of particular help to women.
  I mentioned earlier our out-of-school child care initiative. Of course mothers cannot work and contribute to the economy unless they can find suitable care for their children. That is why we are committed to the expansion of child care services—to give parents more choice. We are playing a part where we feel we can achieve most. There has recently been a large increase in the number of pre-school places. Much of that has been achieved without the need for Government intervention. We strongly believe in the importance of diversity, so that parents have a choice of child care to suit their varying needs.
  In 1994, there were 147,600 day nursery places—double the number in 1984. There were 411,300 playgroup places, a 4 per cent. increase since 1983, and 102,600 places in holiday schemes. There were also more than 357,000 places with registered child minders in 1994—more than three times the 1984 figure.
  The Government will continue to encourage expansion and choice of provision for parents. From October 1994, help with child care charges has been available to families receiving family credit and certain other benefits. The purpose of the child care disregard is to help low-income families to work. Child care charges of up to £40 are offset against earnings when benefit entitlement is calculated.
  From April 1996, we are extending this help by increasing the disregard to as much as £60 a week, which should be of particular help to lone parents with more than one child. In the first year, we estimate that 25,000 families benefited from the scheme.
  Ms Eagle rose—
  Mrs. Gillan: I must make some progress.
  Back in 1993, the Secretary of State launched the out-of-school child care initiative. The original aim was to set up 50,000 after-school and holiday places for school-age children in Great Britain. We have exceeded that three-year target, and will have created more than 55,000 places by April 1996 in England alone. Places in Scotland number over 5,000, and that figure is expected to rise to nearly 7,000 by the end of March—significantly higher than the original target of 4,000 places. We have also created more than 3,000 places in Wales.
  The initiative has been independently evaluated, and its success is proven. Nearly 90 per cent. of the parents surveyed were in employment, and more than 40 per cent. of them had enjoyed some improvement in their labour market position since they began using the scheme. Satisfaction with the child care provided was expressed by 95 per cent. of parents; and 98 per cent. of the child care places created with the grant are still going strong.
  The initiative continues, with the new funding of £12.5 million available in England over three years from April 1996. That means that we will have spent nearly

  475
  £60 million on that initiative, which will enable training and enterprise councils to create 18,000 further places across England. I hope that TECs will continue to work in local partnership and use Government money to attract further funding from other key stakeholders to create even more places.
  The initiative is making it possible for many more women to improve their employment prospects, and I am pleased to confirm that it is being extended to Northern Ireland. Funding of £4 million is to be made available and a target of creating 3,000 places across Northern Ireland in the next three years has been set, which I am sure all hon. Members will welcome.
  The Government are committed to women achieving their full potential in society. For example, we are extending opportunities of every kind for women through the "fair play" initiative. "Fair play" is the first partnership between the Government and the Equal Opportunities Commission, and was launched in the English regions in April 1994 with a brief to tackle barriers facing women in economic and social life. The concept began in Wales, and I am pleased to say that it was formally extended to Northern Ireland on 21 February, and will be adopted in Scotland very soon.
  Consortia of key local players have been established in each of the 10 regions, and are covered by integrated Government offices. Members include businesses, educational institutions, voluntary organisations and others. At national level, there is support from the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the Local Government Management Board.
  The Government also fully support the aims of Opportunity 2000, which has gone from strength to strength since its launch in 1991. My Department was among the first employers to join the campaign. Many other employers have followed our example, and Opportunity 2000's membership is three times its original size.
  The barriers to girls and women are coming down. Among the 291 organisations in Opportunity 2000, the proportion of women at director level has doubled, from 8 per cent. in 1994 to 16 per cent. in 1995. The proportion of women at senior management levels has increased from 25 to 32 per cent. over the same period. In the past few years, traditional occupational segregation has begun to break down.
  I remember that, in my speech on this very topic last year, I referred to our first woman astronaut, Helen Sharman. I am delighted that, since then, the Royal Air Force has employed two women fast jet pilots, and of course, last year, Concord was flown by its first woman pilot.
  In government, we are practising what we preach. The civil service tries to be an exemplary employer, and since 1984, women's representation has increased at all levels bar the lowest. Several measures are in place to improve women's representation still further—family-friendly policies, women-only training, inclusion of women on promotion boards and monitoring of appraisal reports, to name but a few.
  A wide range of flexible working patterns is available. In October 1995, there were 55 civil service nurseries and about 120 holiday play schemes. In addition, there were 20 nursery ventures with other employers, and 16 schemes through which places were bought in private nurseries.
  476
  I have concentrated on domestic matters, and I should like now to turn to what is happening internationally, because last year, I criticised the Opposition, who called the debate, for not looking at the international scene.
  A very important event took place last year: the United Nations conference on women in Béjing. I was honoured to lead the UK delegation jointly with my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. More than 36,000 women from all over the world, representing Governments and non-governmental organisations, worked together to consider progress made on women's issues since 1985 and to negotiate a global platform for action.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a positive disgrace that the conference was held in China, bearing in mind that country's policies towards women, not least the killing of girl babies or their abandonment, for example? Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been far better if representatives of countries such as the United Kingdom had stayed away and protested at the grotesque discrimination against women that takes place in China?
  Mrs. Gillan: I agree with part of my hon. Friend's intervention. No one could possibly endorse some of the reports of the treatment of female babies in China. I thought, however, that China was a fitting place for the holding of the conference. It became apparent during my time there that the conference enabled the Chinese to focus more clearly on world opinion. We want to bring about change in China, and I thought it right that we should be in that country to bring the focus clearly on to women.
  It was an excellent conference. We had 18 months of preparation in the run-up to it. Those months were valuable in enabling us to create and build relationships with women's non-governmental organisations, such as the Women's National Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission. Their assistance, knowledge and expertise were invaluable throughout the entire conference process. The Government are keen to strengthen these links. I thank all the organisations involved.
  The outcome document, "Global Platform for Action", forms the basis for future work to achieve equality for women. The Government take their international obligations seriously, and we are fully committed to the global platform. Indeed, we are already implementing many of its recommendations. When I was in Peking, I outlined an implementation strategy, which is now well under way.
  My Department is responsible for co-ordinating policy on all issues of concern to women, including implementation of "Global Platform for Action". It would be impossible, of course, to implement such a huge document on our own, not merely because of its size but because of its messages for business and the community as well as government. The document covers 12 critical areas of concern, and I shall take up some of them in more detail.
  "Global Platform for Action" gives prominence to education. That is an area in which over recent years we have turned a major corner. That is reflected in the success of girls and women. Many of the inequalities

  477
  between men and women stem from entrenched attitudes acquired in childhood. The national curriculum is a step forward in challenging stereotype attitudes. Girls and boys must all study mathematics, science, technology, English and physical education from the age of five to 16. Equally, they must study history, geography, music and art from the age of five to 15, as well as a foreign language from 11 to 16.
  We have, for example, taken a lead in developing information technology education as part of the curriculum, to ensure that it does not become a male preserve. I can see that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) is smiling at me. She knows my opinion on these matters. We are building on this work to increase teachers' confidence and ability in information technology. Last month, we announced a pilot project designed to give up to 700 teachers portable multi-media computers as a means of developing their abilities in IT, and, in turn, improve their teaching in the classroom.
  This month, we are publishing a booklet on highly able girls and boys. Meanwhile, girls now match or even out-perform boys in all first assessment tests. In 1994, 48 per cent. of girls achieved five or more GCSE grades A to C, compared with 39 per cent. of boys. More girls than boys stay on in full-time education after 16, women are in the majority in further education and form an equal proportion of those going on to higher education.
  Mrs. Lait: Given the achievements of girls in education, is it not time to focus on the dispossessed young male?
  Mrs. Gillan: I often feel sorry for the opposite sex, but I am not going to pursue that train of thought in this debate, which concentrates on women and the progress that we have made. I have made it clear that I do not want discrimination against men in any progress we make. Many of the subjects that we are discussing are equally applicable to men and women.
  Ms Eagle: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Gillan: We want to raise achievement for everyone, boys and girls, and where performance data show a difference in the performance of boys and girls, schools need to consider how best to tackle it. I was just trying to get to the end of my sentence—I give way to the hon. Lady.
  Ms Eagle: Modern apprenticeships were considered by the Employment Select Committee, which heard evidence that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was worried about. It has emerged that only one in four places on modern apprenticeships go to women, and that they tend to be concentrated in training for caring work rather than in engineering, information technology or any of the laudable things that the Minister talked about. Does that figure worry her? Are the Government taking steps to right the balance?
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady knows that modern apprenticeships became available in all training and enterprise council areas in England during September 1995.
  478
  The programme has had an excellent start. We went national last autumn, more than 15,000 young people are in training, and we are on course for well over 20,000 by the end of March. It is exactly what employers want. The evaluation last autumn showed that more than 90 per cent. of employers are satisfied with modern apprenticeships, and would recommend them to other employers.
  Alongside education, the platform for action stresses the importance of vocational training for women. The network of training and enterprise councils in England and Wales, and the local enterprise companies in Scotland, play a major role in promoting equality of opportunity in training and at work. Their strategic priority is to help those at a disadvantage in the labour market to overcome barriers to finding work and to develop their abilities to the full.
  Equal opportunities are built into training programmes for both young people and adults. TECs also play a major role in helping returners to the labour market. On some programmes, women have a better outcome rate than men.
  Last December, we announced the "innovation in training" initiative, which will promote awareness and the use of flexible training. It is an attractive route for many women, because it offers choice about the time, place and pace of training. It is a convenient and readily accessible training option for women who want to update their skills, perhaps before returning to the labour market after a break.
  Equal opportunities are about tapping women's abilities and educational achievements. Take, for example, the economically vital areas of science, engineering and technology. We recognise that too many top-class women researchers are lost to science and engineering after they complete PhDs.
  Last October, my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology launched a new booklet called "Making the Most", which was produced in partnership with Opportunity 2000. It provides clear evidence of the business benefits to employers of policies, such as family-friendly working practices, that allow all scientists and engineers to fulfil their potential, and gives case studies from the experience of six leading employers.
  Too few of our young, able women choose to study science, engineering and technology beyond GCSE. Many of those who follow such careers make significant contributions to their local communities and to the quality of all our lives. Our young women need to be more aware of that.
  The Office of Science and Technology is co-ordinating a special day on Wednesday 20 March. Women scientists, engineers and technologists will appear in most regions of the United Kingdom to demonstrate and explain their work as part of National Science and Engineering Week. I hope that hon. Members will support those women's events in their constituencies.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: We all welcome moves to highlight scientific careers for women. Does the Minister agree that the reasons why many women are not able to continue their scientific careers are short-term contracts, which are prevalent in science, and the lack of child care, which has been commented on in the report, "The Rising Tide", published by the Cabinet Office? What is she going to do about that?
  Mrs. Gillan: I hope that the hon. Lady was listening earlier, when I talked about our out-of-school child care initiative. We recognise that that problem is a barrier. That is why the Government have been putting so much behind the scheme. She also knows that it is up to employers, and especially employers of women scientists, to produce schemes that will benefit women.
  For example, Amersham International in my constituency has a scheme under which, if a woman wishes to take a career break, provided she returns for a period each year to update herself on her discipline, she can come back to the company after spending some time away having and raising her children.
  The Investors in People standard relates to all employees. However, to make that even more explicit, we have accepted the recommendation by Investors in People UK that the guidance to the standard should note that, where the indicators relate to all employees, it should be regardless of age, gender, race and disability.
  I mentioned health. The platform for action shows that, across the world, one of the major barriers to women's health is inequality and lack of services to meet their health needs. In Britain, several recent advances have been made in women's health care. The Department of Health has successfully introduced national screening programmes for cervical and breast cancer. We were the first country in the European Union to do so.
  Mrs. Llin Golding: Does the Minister consider that £36.80 and one milk token contribute to the health of a baby, because that is all that pregnant women get? That is all that single women on income support get. Is one milk token the Government's contribution to the nation's health?
  Mrs. Gillan: Rather than criticising, the hon. Lady should say what she would suggest. I do not hear any policies. I would welcome some policy ideas from the Opposition later in the debate.
  Mrs. Gorman: A milk token represents seven pints of milk. People in those circumstances get that each week for each child, and for themselves as well if they are nursing mothers. That puts a different complexion on the matter.
  Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend for that impressive and helpful intervention.
  Britain was the first country in the European Union to introduce national screening programmes for cervical and breast cancer. Our other initiatives include an awareness campaign on cardio-vascular disease in women, implementation of the recommendations of the advisory group on osteoporosis, and efforts to improve mental health treatment.
  Another matter that was identified in the platform was violence against women; again, we have taken action. The Government are entirely convinced that domestic violence must be tackled vigorously and treated as a crime. The awareness campaign launched by the Government in 1994 focuses on the criminality of domestic violence, and encourages victims to seek help.
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: Many of us care a great deal about domestic violence. What is the Minister's view of the Government's withdrawal of the last Bill on
  480
  domestic violence, which had been widely consulted on? Many people involved in the matter had given a lot of time to advising the Government, and felt very aggrieved.
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady may find the answer in the Family Law Bill.
  As I was saying, the Government are entirely convinced that domestic violence should be treated as a crime. As part of our on-going campaign, an inter-agency circular on domestic violence was published on 17 August last year, to encourage a more co-ordinated and effective inter-agency response to tackling the problem by local agencies.
  In particular, the Government recognise the nuisance of stalking. The Home Office is considering all the options to see what scope there is to strengthen the criminal law to deal with stalkers.
  I have set out a comprehensive and effective range of measures that we are taking to promote economic competitiveness and equality for women. We have achieved much, and without accepting damaging European Community laws such as the social chapter.
  Our position on the opt-out from the draft social chapter is clear. We do not intend to give it up in the 1996 intergovernmental conference. It is clear that employers in Britain and in Europe are deeply concerned about the impact of social legislation on business and jobs. Without the social chapter, we have still been able to advance significantly the role and position of women in our society, and we shall continue to do so.
  In its 1992 election manifesto, the Labour party promised to establish a Ministry for women. Now it has abandoned that promise, like so many of its other old policies. It also promised to appoint a Cabinet Minister for women. But that has already been done.
  I am sure that we will hear many more promises from the Labour party. However, we will not take lectures from a party whose policy of women-only short-lists amounted to unlawful sex discrimination. It is ironic that the party that introduced the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was found to be in breach of it 20 years later.
  I welcomed the decision of the industrial tribunal in Leeds, because I believe that women should be chosen only when they are the best candidates. I do not believe that any woman wants to make progress in politics, public life or employment if that involves discriminating against a man.
  Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I mean Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.] It is an easy mistake to make. When I spoke in the previous two debates on women's issues, I spoke from the Back Benches. Today I am delighted to have been able to introduce this Adjournment debate in Government time.
  Today I have announced the reappointment of the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and the extra funds to help update the technology at the commission. I have also announced the implementation programme for the platform for action, and I have highlighted the progress we have made.
  The way forward to equality lies through education and determination, not through discrimination. It lies in giving women more choices over their lives. The Conservative party and the Government are giving women those choices. The Government's record in promoting women is

  481
  a proud one, and under their policies, women have moved towards greater equality with men. There is still much to be done, but the House will agree that the policies that we have been following for the past 17 years represent the right way forward for all women throughout the United Kingdom.
  4.53 pm
  Ms Tessa Jowell: I begin by welcoming the Government's decision to hold this debate today. We especially welcome the fact that the debate is in Government time, albeit on a Thursday evening. As hon. Members will know, for the past two years the Labour party has arranged for a debate in Opposition time to mark International Women's Day, so we are delighted that, this year, in this as in other aspects of the role of women in Britain today, we lead and the Government follow. It is worth noting that this is the only debate about the position of women that has ever been held by this Government.
  The debate is an important mark of International Women's Day tomorrow, when the achievements of women will be celebrated throughout the world. I ask the House to join my hon. Friends and me in congratulating the hundreds of women's organisations that work for, and represent, the aspirations and concerns of women throughout the country.
  Many of those organisations have been pursuing for years the issues that now have public prominence. In the early 1930s, the National Federation of Women's Institutes published one of the first reports on domestic violence, and the current newsletter of the Townswomen's Guild reveals its continuing campaign for a review of the law of provocation in cases in which a wife has killed a violent husband. The Townswomen's Guild is also continuing its campaign for an expansion of child care provision, and for proper support for carers.
  The nationwide survey undertaken by the Body Shop and the Women's Communication Centre will be published in the summer, but already more than 10,000 women have taken part. What do women want? I shall quote from some of the responses already received. Women want
  "The right to work without people saying that you are taking a man's job"
  and
  "The right to care for children and still have a decent pension".
  One woman said:
  "I want to be appreciated by society for being a mother. I want families to be society's top priority so that jobs are organised around families and not vice versa".
  Other things that women have said that they want are:
  "more women only public transport after dark",
  "to walk with my dog in the woods without fear",
  and
  "52 per cent. of women in government".
  Many representatives of those organisations will join my hon. Friends and me later for a reception in the Jubilee Room to celebrate International Women's Day. In a spirit of co-operation and good will, I invite Conservative Members to join us.
  482
  In September, as the Minister said, the United Nations conference on women was held in Beijing. The "Global Platform for Action" was the result. That is a set of commitments signed up to by Governments throughout the world, including the British Government.
  Mrs. Lait: I am most interested in finding out at what time the hon. Lady will depart for the party. Is it not a bit of an insult to the House if she abandons the debate on women's opportunities?
  Ms Jowell: I do not think that that is a serious intervention; it will cause great offence to the many organisations throughout the country whose representatives want to come to the House of Commons today to join my hon. Friends in celebrating International Women's Day.
  The Beijing declaration covers a wide range of issues, from women in poverty, access to education and health care, to violence against women, human rights, and the participation of women in public life. I have been enormously impressed by the dedication shown by women's organisations throughout the country in following up that declaration. In the spirit of the suffragettes, what women want from Beijing are deeds, not words.
  Women want to see the Beijing declaration being translated into practical improvements in all women's lives. It would be an unforgivable betrayal if no positive action followed the ringing declaration by Baroness Chalker:
  "Progress for women is progress for all, families, the men, our children and our communities. We must respond to the vision, generations depend upon it".
  Noble words from the noble Lady. Unfortunately, they look as if they will go the same way as so many other Government promises. It is one thing to cut a fine figure abroad, but another to deliver the goods at home.
  In Beijing it was agreed that
  "many women encounter specific obstacles related to their family status, particularly as single parents. Governments must provide adequate safety nets and strengthen State-based support systems to enable women living in poverty to preserve their livelihoods."
  At home, barely six weeks later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer froze the single-parent premium in the Budget.
  In Beijing it was agreed
  "to promote the harmonisation of work and family responsibilities for women and men".
  At home the Government refused to implement the parental leave directive, which would have given up to three months' unpaid leave until children are eight years old.
  In Beijing, it was agreed
  "to promote women's economic independence … and eradicate the persistent and increasing burden of poverty on women by addressing the structural causes of poverty through changes in economic structures."
  At home, British workers and British women are now alone in Europe in having no minimum wage. Truly, China is on the other side of the world.
  This annual debate gives the House an opportunity to measure progress in relation to the issues that most concern women. It would be encouraging if the Government used the opportunity to deliver a report—a kind of audit—on their achievements for women. We have an annual Budget speech on financial matters; an annual statement on the current position of women would command widespread

  483
  interest. Government action for women, however, is a well-kept secret. The spirit of open government is certainly not to be seen in that regard. The Government have a Cabinet committee on women's issues, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, but we cannot be told when the committee meets, and we certainly cannot be told what it discusses. It is difficult to imagine what can be regarded as top secret.
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady is so familiar with the Cabinet sub-committee on women that she has just said that it is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister. Let me inform her that it is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who apologised to me earlier for not being able to attend the debate.
  The hon. Lady has mentioned the social chapter. Perhaps she should talk to the deputy Leader of the Opposition, who said, I believe, that any fool knows that the social chapter would cause a jobs fallout. That jobs fallout could well involve the women whom we are discussing today.
  Ms Jowell: I shall have to check the Prime Minister's answer to me very carefully. I was pretty certain that he had said that the Cabinet sub-committee was chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, but if I stand to be corrected, I shall certainly make that clear.
  What women want is a Government who recognise that women's lives are changing—who recognise that, while women's lives are mostly organised around a web of private relationships and private arrangements, a Government who understand those changes can be a vital source of strength for women as they discharge family responsibilities and make their varied contributions to their communities.
  The biggest change in women's lives is that seven out of 10 women now work, and nearly 50 per cent. of women with children under five work. Most women work because they need the money, and they choose to work part time because that gives them the flexibility both to work and to look after their children. The prospects for women at work vary enormously according to geography and age. The employment prospects of a young female graduate living in the south-east are infinitely better than those of a 50-year-old, unskilled woman living almost anywhere. Although women now have better access to the professions, that does not yet properly extend to promotion: the glass ceiling has still to be cracked. In virtually every profession, women are at the bottom and men at the top.
  Women mainly work in the growing sectors of social care, health care, retailing and catering. Those jobs tend to be done by women working part time. About 5.1 million women work part time, but more than 1 million earn less than the national insurance threshold of £59 a week. That represents a threefold increase since 1979. In those sectors, the new jobs, and the new low-paid jobs, are concentrated. Of the 1 million people who earn less than £2.50 an hour, many are doing such jobs. Those are jobs that women take because men could not afford to do so. They are jobs that rely on a second income, because no one could live on what they pay alone. They are jobs that would not be taken by single people, who could not afford to live on such earnings. They are jobs done by women with no employment rights and no protection.
  484
  Two letters provide graphic evidence of the extent of low pay. A 16-year-old girl working as a hairdresser and paid £45 for a 40-hour week—£1.12 an hour—writes:
  "I have to borrow money from my mother for my bus fare and lunch … My mother works part time in a supermarket and doesn't earn much herself, but she does not want me to be poor".
  A 40-year-old care assistant who has worked for the same employer for eight years is paid £1.88 an hour, and works a 30-hour week. She has had no pay increase for the past five years. Her responsibilities include personal caring for the residents of the elderly people's home in which she works, cooking and other kitchen duties, general cleaning in the home and dispensing drugs. Does any hon. Member really believe that work in such conditions represents a move towards equality and opportunity for women of which we can be proud?
  In that sector, there has been a rapid rise in the number of zero-hours contracts. The jobs are invisible in employment statistics. They provide no security and no guaranteed weekly pay; according to the Equal Opportunities Commission, workers in such circumstances may even find it difficult to establish that they actually are employees, and are thereby denied any employment rights. Such contracts are anathema to good employers, and a Labour Government will outlaw them.
  Mrs. Gorman: I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us exactly what the Labour party intends to do about such problems as the danger of walking in the woods, and that that will include the imposition of real penalties. Will she also put some figures to those proposals, so that the taxpayer knows what it will cost to implement them?
  Ms Jowell: I must ask the hon. Lady to be patient and to listen to the rest of my speech. A number of her questions will be answered.
  We shall doubtless hear a good deal from Conservative Members about the regulation of the labour market. They will say that any protection for employees is a "burden on business". Let me make clear what Labour wants to see.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jowell: Perhaps I could follow up the hon. Lady's earlier point, and set out what Labour wants to see. It may pre-empt her intervention.
  Mrs. Winterton: I know for a fact that it will not.
  Is the hon. Lady aware that, if the social chapter were implemented, it would have a huge impact on the jobs of women in my constituency? Is she further aware that, according to the CBI, 1,300 people in my constituency would lose their jobs as a direct result? Many of those people would be women, as my constituency has a very low unemployment level among women—and men.
  Ms Jowell: Conservative Members constantly come out with similar lines about the social chapter, but they are not borne out in practice.
  We also know that, under Opportunity 2000, a Government initiative which we welcome, employers are expected to demonstrate their good employment conditions and practices. That is a condition of their membership of the scheme.

  485
  Let me make it clear what Labour wants to see. We stand by the right of women and men to decent employment conditions. We shall introduce a minimum wage, along with every other country in the European Union, because we believe that those who work for a living should be paid a living wage. In other countries, a minimum wage has been used to narrow the gender pay gap. Even Winston Churchill supported the idea as long ago as 1909, rightly arguing that
  "decent conditions make for industrial efficiency and increase rather than decrease competitive power".
  We shall support the standards that have already been introduced by the best employers. Marks and Spencer, for instance, has banned zero-hours contracts, as has the TSB. We are determined to see the kind of regulation that supports, and does not stifle, the standards of our most successful businesses. We shall end the Government subsidy of poverty wages by introducing a minimum wage.
  We shall staunch the flow of subsidy from the taxpayer to the sweatshop owner. The Government's obsession with competition under any circumstances means that, as a result of compulsory competitive tendering, every pound saved by the employer costs the taxpayer £2 in benefit paid out and tax not taken in. Those were the findings of an Equal Opportunities Commission survey.
  The North Yorkshire dinner ladies had their pay cut and they were no longer paid a retainer. Their sick pay scheme was scrapped and their pension scheme was ended. That is the reality of compulsory competitive tendering for thousands of dedicated and hard-working women. That is not efficiency, but exploitation. It is not progress; it is a hark-back to the days that we should have been proud to have left behind. The Equal Opportunities Commission in Northern Ireland, in a recent report, called on the Government to halt the use of compulsory competitive tendering because of its impact on women's pay—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have resisted intervening, but there has been no end of chattering, particularly on the Opposition Benches when the Minister was speaking, and now on the Government Benches while the Opposition—[Interruption.] Order. If the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) wants to say anything, he can say it outside. If not, he will remain quiet—I hope for the rest of the sitting.
  Ms Jowell: Yesterday, the Government tabled amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 and to the Equal Pay Act 1970. The first proposal is to allow compensation for unintended indirect discrimination. It is a bit late, however, because the tribunals are already ahead of the Government on that issue.
  The second proposal relates to the Equal Pay Act 1970. It is intended to give tribunals that hear equal pay cases discretion as to whether to seek the evidence of independent job evaluation assessors. We believe that there are risks with that proposal, which may tilt the balance of advantage to the employers, who will still be able to commission their own independent witnesses to assess jobs and their comparators.
  486
  What will happen, for example, if the industrial tribunal members decide to dispense with an independent assessor and to do it themselves, and that is challenged by expert witnesses for the claimant or the respondent? Either the industrial tribunal will have to allow for the possibility of its judgment being overridden by someone with greater expertise, or there will be no place for the use of such experts. The EOC opposed that proposal in the Government's consultation document.
  Pamela Enderby's case provides compelling evidence of the unworkability of the equal value provisions. The Government were forced to amend the Equal Pay Act 1970 following criticism from the European Commission and the Law Lords. It is worth recollecting the words of Baroness Thatcher, who was fulsome in her support of that Act. She said:
  "So many people have supported the idea of equal pay for so long that one wonders at the continuing inequality between men and women. I believe that the Bill will lead to better pay for many jobs."
  By his own admission, Alan Clark, the Minister who was responsible for taking through the amendments to the Equal Pay Act 1970, in the early 1980s, was drunk when he proposed the legislation to the House. In that shambles probably lies—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Lady is quoting a former hon. Member, she must provide a Hansard column number. Otherwise, I must ask her to withdraw her statement that an hon. Member at the Dispatch Box was drunk.
  Ms Jowell: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the reference I made was to the former Minister's diaries. If you would like me to withdraw the observation, I shall do so. Hon. Members will be able to read the account in his diaries.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not my wish to direct the hon. Lady to do anything. I have made the position clear. The hon. Lady must make her own judgment.
  Ms Jowell: I am happy to withdraw the suggestion, but to commend to hon. Members the relevant pages of the former Minister's book.
  Sir Anthony Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was referred to twice in the diaries which the hon. Lady has quoted. Those references were quite inaccurate, so I do not think that we need take the matter any further.
  Ms Jowell: I shall briefly set out the facts of Pamela Enderby's case, as evidence of the impossible obstacles to cases being brought under those provisions. Dr. Enderby first brought her claim in 1986. She claimed that she was employed in work of equal value with men working as principal grade pharmacists and clinical psychologists. The industrial tribunal, nearly 10 years later, is now at the point at which it will examine statistics on pay and gender for speech therapy and clinical psychology and pharmacy. Thirteen hundred other claims were filed by speech therapists, from 1986 to 1987, and those are pending the outcome of Dr. Enderby's case. As I understand it, her case has only now been referred to the independent experts.
  What the Government are offering—their gift for International Women's Day—is a make-do-and-mend version of sex equality. What we need is a complete

  487
  overhaul of our sex equality legislation. We are proud that those Acts were passed by a Labour Government. The Government are as aware as we are of the shortcomings of those Acts, and that their remedies take too long, cases are too expensive and do not allow for representative action. The difference is that Labour will do something about those shortcomings if we win the next election.
  We need a new sex equality Bill that simplifies existing procedures, brings UK legislation in line with European law, strengthens the concept of indirect discrimination and creates the responsibility of representative actions so that incidents do not always have to be settled on a case-by-case basis. The advantage of a future Labour Government, with a new sex equality Act, is that fewer costly and time-consuming cases would go to the European Court of Justice.
  The Minister paid tribute to the work of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and so do we. The EOC was the creation of a Labour Government, and it will be 20 years old this summer. The Government's birthday present to it was a £300,000 cut in its grant, which represents more than it spends in total on legal cases, and places its entire research department under threat.
  The political agenda for women has moved on; it is no longer about narrow sexual politics. The new expectations of sex equality are to be seen in the confidence of so many young women, who take for granted their right to progress and to compete with men. We should celebrate the fact that, for them, the politics of victimhood no longer has any resonance.
  The changes in women's lives confront them with a new set of issues. As they increasingly combine the responsibilities of home and work, they have not left behind the responsibilities that most women still discharge. Two thirds of all housework, for example, is still done by women. As a recent survey by Parents at Work revealed, however, three out of five women reported feeling that did not see enough of their children, and most said that they felt constantly exhausted.
  The corollary of women taking more responsibility outside home is that men must take more responsibility within it. The long-hours culture was created by men so that they could demonstrate their commitment to their jobs by being there. "Presenteeism" is the new term in popular use. That term essentially means that, most of the time, it is not how much one does that matters: it is being there that counts. That concept needs to be challenged and changed.
  In Germany, I am told, if one's car is still in the car park at 6 o'clock, it is assumed that one is not very good at one's job.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Speaking of a job in which, quite clearly, it is more a matter of being here than what we do that matters, would the hon. Lady like to tell us where she stands on this business of women-only short-lists for entry to the House of Commons?
  Ms Jowell: I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for a few moments until I come to that passage in my speech. I shall not sit down without telling him about that.
  As women's lives are changing, so families are changing. Despite the fact that, in 1992, one in two marriages ended in divorce, it is worth remembering that four out of every five children grow up living with both their parents until they are 16.
  488
  As the pattern of work has changed, so has the divide between the work-rich, two-earner family and the work-poor no-earner family. It is to the Government's shame and a testament to their complacency that one family in five now have no one in work. Again, the Government's flexibility is most families' insecurity, with, as my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said last week, 8 million people having experienced a period of unemployment since the previous election.
  Those changes to the family have different effects over time. One of the reasons for the importance of the cross-party victory last week in the House of Lords on pension-splitting on divorce is that women who now face poverty and hardship on retirement are women who grew up when the expectations of men and women were different. Those women stayed at home and brought up the children while their husbands worked. There was no national debate about the need for child care, because, by and large, the women were at home. There was no great concern about women's pensions because then women were dependent on their husbands.
  The Government's failure to anticipate and protect people from the hardship of rapid social change has caused difficulty and distress. Because Labour in 1974 recognised the uncertainties of women's lives in combining family responsibility with work, the state earnings-related pension scheme calculated that the 20 best years, rather than lifetime earnings, would give women the best protection against poverty in old age.
  A Government who recognise the changes in women's lives can make a difference to women and their families but if, like this Government, they believe that everything should be left to the market, they cannot provide the necessary framework of support and enablement. When it comes to community care, the Government centralise decisions and then stand clear when things go wrong. So many elderly or disabled people have no family and no community that, when local government—the resource of last resort—pulls out, there is no one left.
  Before I was elected to the House, I worked with carers in Birmingham. I vividly recall a conversation with one half of an elderly couple. He looked after her, and there was no support available other than the sporadic visits of the district nurse. I remember him saying, "I put off the moment when I draw the curtains at night because when I have drawn them and it is just me and her, I feel as if I am the last person left on earth."
  Child care is the most important means by which women can get back to work. It must be affordable, flexible and reliable, and it must be more than mere minding; it should take proper account of the children's developmental needs. The lack of affordable child care keeps one single mother in three on benefit, denying them the self-sufficiency that they want for themselves and their children. So far, the Government's sole contribution has been to dabble in three or four schemes and pass that off as concerted action on child care.
  When mothers become workers, they do not stop being mothers or stop being preoccupied with their children.
  Mrs. Gillan: I am interested to hear the hon. Lady say that £60 million is "dabbling". Perhaps she would like to put on the table the money that her party would provide for child care initiatives.
  Ms Jowell: I said that because it is the view of organisations beyond the House that the Government are simply not serious about child care. Employers for Childcare, a consortium that represents 40 of the top 100 companies, is among those who do not regard the Government as being serious about child care.
  Mothers who work are still full-time mothers. Child care has been a private matter for most. Paid child care is generally available only to mothers in reasonably well-paid jobs, while the children of low-paid mothers are, by and large, looked after by relatives. Publicly provided child care accounts for only 5 per cent. of the care of children in this country, which is the lowest level in Europe. Good child care is also good business, as Employers for Childcare has argued. Child care is the building block for women at work. It is also a partner to economic efficiency. It enables not only mothers, but fathers, to work.
  The Government are walking away from any responsibility for making possible the sharing of parenting responsibilities. In June, we shall be the only country in the European Union to have no provision for parental leave. The Government extol family responsibility but deny parents the opportunity to exercise it when it is most important.
  Let me deal now with women and Parliament. Since Nancy Astor made her maiden speech in 1920, pledging to speak for women and children up and down the country, only 169 other women have taken their seats, compared with nearly 4,000 men. Our performance in creating a Parliament that speaks for men and women is dismal compared to that of virtually every other country.
  The presence of women in our Parliament, as in every other sphere of our public life, is important, but not only as an end in itself. Parliament cannot be as good at its job as it should be precisely because more than half the nation is not properly represented here. When the perceptions of women are missing from the great debates, or even from the daily round of political administration, bad policies will ensue.
  I cite by way of recent example the shackling of women in labour. It would have taken only one or two women in the Home Office who had had children to tell the Home Secretary or the Minister of State that a woman in the final stages of labour is not likely to look for a window and shin down a drainpipe.
  The introduction of mixed sex wards also causes enormous distress to women, especially in psychiatric hospitals. Some 50 per cent. of women admitted to mental hospitals will at some time in their lives have suffered sexual abuse. At the very time that they feel most vulnerable, they find themselves having to share lavatories and bathroom facilities with men who are also disturbed.
  After the next election, we hope to double the number of women sitting on the Labour Benches. We are aiming to achieve the equal representation of men and women within three Parliaments. We are sure that that will bring a change to the nature of politics here and improve the quality of government for the nation.
  The effect of the industrial tribunal ruling that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 now applies to parliamentary selections for all parties should be of particular interest to the Minister—if she would care to stop chatting and listen. The selection process in her party is clearly rife with discrimination, and she will not be surprised to learn of a conversation that I had recently with one of her party's frustrated candidates.
  490
  The woman to whom I spoke, who is clearly a great improvement on most Conservative Members, complained that, at her most recent attempt to be selected, she had been told that no one over 45 and certainly no women should apply. She went off with a gleam in her eye when I told her of the remedies available to her now that the 1975 Act applies to the selection of parliamentary candidates.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Lady has completely misunderstood what democracy is about. First and foremost, the Conservative party is not run by diktat from central office. We believe that constituency associations should choose the potential Member of Parliament who suits them best—in other words, horses for courses. I must also point out that many activists in Conservative constituency parties—perhaps this is also the case in Labour associations—are women, and it is women's prejudice against women that must be defeated. Our parliamentary democracy is based on local associations choosing their own candidates.
  Ms Jowell: We know that the Conservative party is absolutely desperate about its dismal performance in selecting women and in contributing to a Parliament that properly speaks for the nation. It is worth reminding the House that there are more Members of Parliament called John than there are hon. Ladies. We intend to change that. There are a number of Johns of whom I am extremely fond, and whom I admire greatly.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the Hon. Lady give way to me, as a John?
  Ms Jowell: No.
  Our commitment to women—many of whom feel disenchanted with politics and with politicians—is that the issues that matter to them will infuse our public and political debate. As politicians, we must listen and act on what we hear: that is a major part of our commitment to democratic renewal.
  Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that it was a custom of the House that when hon. Members were referred to by name, as a matter of courtesy, those who were speaking—either male or female—would normally give way to them. Is that not a custom of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is an historic custom of this House.
  Ms Jowell: Had I notified all the Johns, I would have had to make 90 telephone calls or to have written 90 notes. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will understand that no discourtesy was intended to the John who has just come in.
  Across the whole range of women's interests, the Government are doing little more than sitting with their hands in their lap, watching the world of women go by. The Government have nothing to say, or only grudging comments to make, when it comes to the Beijing declaration, the changes in women's employment, equality legislation and the new political agenda. The Government do nothing to sponsor the ambitions and

  491
  optimism of young women, nothing to mitigate the long slog of the part-time worker and the full-time mother, and nothing to ease the burdens of the housebound carer. When we are in government, we shall show what can be done to ease all these different paths, and we shall keep faith with the women of Britain—for their sakes, for the sake of their young families and for the sake of the elderly or ill who depend on them.
  5.32 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Like the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), I have previously taken part in these sorts of debates and I am beginning to wonder why we bother to have them. Such debates are demeaning and patronising, and it is time that we took them out of the parliamentary calendar. It is a waste of parliamentary time to listen to this sort of claptrap. However, I will take the opportunity to put my points of view forward. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister because I will not be present to hear her wind up the debate, but I shall read very carefully in Hansard what she says.
  I believe that there should be no discrimination at all, and that we are currently discriminating against our male colleagues. We are saying that we do not want to suffer discrimination, so perhaps we should not organise debates only for women. The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) mentioned some women's organisations and I regret that she did not mention Business and Professional Women, which started in this country in the early 1930s, and is now an international women's organisation. It has long worked for supporting and promoting equal opportunities for women, and I am proud to say that I have been a member for more than 30 years.
  There are more than 12 million women in this country who are economically active—I am never quite sure what that means, but I think it means that they go to work. Women comprise 45 per cent. of the work force, which is an improvement. The United Kingdom has the lowest unemployment rate for women, but for Denmark. Germany has 10 per cent. unemployment for women, France has 13.9 per cent. and Spain has 29 per cent.
  Women have always worked—it is not something new. Who ran the country during the 1914–18 war? Women did, because most of the men went to war. That action resulted in a Bill being passed through this male-dominated House that said that women could take part in the running of the country. Women did the same thing in the 1939–45 war. Who ran the munitions factories? Women did, because most men went to war. It can be seen that women in this country have been working for many years.
  There has been a huge increase in the number of self-employed women. It is sad that when women reach the glass ceiling they decide that they might as well run their own business. They are extremely successful at doing that. Since 1981, the number of self-employed women has increased by 81 per cent.—one in four women are now self-employed. The Government are extending child care so that more mothers can go to work, and the out-of-school child care grant should have created 50,000 more nursery places in England by the end of this month. That will also help women.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister persuades her colleagues to support the amendment to split pensions at the time of divorce, which was passed by the House of
  492
  Lords last week. That action is long overdue. There is no reason why women—who put a lot into their family, their home and their husband's career for, say, 10, 15, 20, 30, or 40 years—should not receive part of their husband's pension at the time of divorce. As I see it, it is part of their assets—just like the family home. I hope that the Government support that initiative.
  I suggest that many modern young women are well qualified in all sorts of ways—they are full of confidence when they leave school. Young women do not need positive discrimination or all-women short-lists: they are quite happy to make their own way in life. Last year, I chaired the panel of judges for the Business and Professional Women's girls' speaking competition. The standard of the schools from all over the country was extremely high—those girls could come here and teach one or two hon. Members how to stand up and speak, and how to make their points concisely. Such competitions encourage young women to get involved in public life and to take part in debates. That competition runs every year.
  I believe that not many of the young women I see when I visit schools—I speak to them and listen to what they have to say—will take too kindly to having reserved places, and they do not need reserved places. If we have reserved places in the House just because we are women, I know what some of our colleagues will say when we sit around a Committee table: "We don't need to listen to you; you're only here because we saved you a place." I do not want to be part of a House, a Committee or a workplace that takes that view.
  If we had a Minister for women, the same thing would happen. All the Departments would say, "It has nothing to do with me. Take that file to the end of the corridor—it belongs to the Minister for women." Women want to be in the midst of what is going on; we do not want an office at the end of the corridor—we want to listen to what the guys are saying. If we are sitting by ourselves down the end of the corridor, we will not know what is going on and we will not have any input. This has been tried in other countries—I see that the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) is shaking her head; perhaps she has not had too many opportunities to talk to people where they have had Ministers for women—and it has not always been successful.
  The young women leaving schools now are more than well qualified to take their place in a modern society.
  Ms Janet Anderson: I think I heard the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) say earlier that she could not understand why this debate is being held and that it is a waste of time. I remind her that it is a Government debate. If she thinks it is a waste of time, why is she speaking?
  Mrs. Peacock: Of course I appreciate that this is a Government debate. As this debate was called, I felt that I could introduce a little bit of common sense into it. That is why I am here.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning)—will recall the saying that if one educates a woman, one educates a family. That is an extremely important fact, which applies as much in this country as in developing countries. We should bear that in mind when we discuss national curricula, and so on.

  493
  We should encourage young women in their school careers and when they leave school. We should encourage them not to start life with a chip on their shoulder, because that is the worst thing they could do. They must start in the belief that they can go out into the big, wide world and that, if they are determined to do something, they will do it. They may have to work a little harder, but so what? We are used to that. It never made any difference before; I do not believe that it will make any difference in future.
  Many women run their home, look after children and go to work. There is nothing new in that; women have always done so. Many women want part-time work because it fits their family routine, enabling them to be at home when their children finish school, and it works well.
  Many women who run families, run their home and go to work are experts in crisis management. There should be a certificate acknowledging that. Occasionally, people say to me, "I am just a housewife"—many years ago I may have done so—but a woman at home must be an expert in crisis management or she will not survive. We should be aware of that.
  Women's average hourly pay is only 79 per cent. of men's. I appreciate that that is the highest percentage ever recorded, but it is not good enough because women should receive equal pay for equal work. My hon. Friend the Minister said that, during the past five years, the proportion of Government public appointments held by women has increased from 23 to 30 per cent. My reaction is to think, "Big deal; why has it not reached 50 per cent?" We could make progress.
  There are very many well qualified women in this country. They may not all want to join us in Parliament, and some have asked me why they should swap their secure, sensible, well-paid jobs to become Members of Parliament. We must listen to what they say, but there are plenty of well qualified women who could be available for public appointments.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: The hon. Lady made telling points about women's failure to achieve some of the successes that she highlighted. She has extolled the need for improvements; will she make practical proposals for achieving the targets that she wishes to achieve?
  Mrs. Peacock: We can do many things. We can encourage and support, but we should not have all-women short-lists to enable women to enter the House, because they would not help.
  Many positive actions are already being taken. When I entered Parliament in 1983, there were only 23 women in the House; there are now slightly more than 60. It is still not nearly enough, but we have heard that the number will increase after the next general election, and we do need to increase it.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said, when selecting for Parliament, in the Conservative party and in other parties, women are often their own worst enemies on selection committees. There have been changes in the Labour party recently and all-women short-lists started to change things, but women must support women in that respect, in which we may not always have been very good.
  Mrs. Lait: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has thought that the problem is not only the women but the age of men and women on selection committees. If those people are, shall we say, older, they are not used to working with women in positions of authority.
  Mrs. Peacock: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. If we all attracted younger people—as we are doing—into associations, where they would have the responsibility of joining selection committees, that would make a tremendous difference.
  There is an old idea that constituencies would not select women, because women in the community would not vote for a woman candidate. That is rubbish. In the years in which I have been a Member of Parliament, each time a woman candidate, of whatever party, has stood in a by-election, she has been elected. That proves that women can attract votes; the old adage is nonsense.
  With all due respect, many women in the House of Commons often work much harder than the men.
  Mrs. Maddock: The hon. Lady is right to say that women have been very successful in by-elections. The view still exists out there that men will not vote for a woman. On the doorstep in Christchurch, some men said, "I could never vote for a woman," but I am pleased to say that many others did, and I am here.
  Mrs. Peacock: It is interesting that the hon. Lady makes those comments, because I am always told that, the further north one goes in the country, the harder men become and the less likely it is that they will vote for a woman. That has been disproved, however, at least in our part of West Yorkshire and, I believe, further north.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Although I represent a constituency not quite as far north as that of my hon. Friend, she may be interested to know that in the next general election the men will have to vote for a woman, because all three candidates selected to date are women.
  Mrs. Peacock: That perhaps proves the point, does it not?
  I hope that my hon. Friends the Ministers will bear in mind that we should not put pressure on women with small children to go to work. It is worrying that people devalue women who stay at home to look after their children. It is one of the most important jobs that women do, and they should be encouraged. Money spent on helping them stay at home with their children until the children go to school at age five would be well spent, and better spent than in some categories of spending.
  Many young women want to stay at home with their children but feel great pressure to return to work. They believe that people will not value them and will believe that they are not making a contribution. That is extremely dangerous.
  Sir Anthony Grant: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend in full flow. Is she aware of an organisation called WATCH—the acronym for "What About the Children"—in which one of my constituents plays a leading part? Much academic research has been done in Cambridge and abroad showing how vital it is for women to be with a child in its early stages. I commend that

  495
  research to my hon. Friend—I will do so to the House if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—because it bears out what she says.
  Mrs. Peacock: Yes, I have heard of that organisation, although I have not studied the research. I believe that it is important for women to stay at home with young children. Obviously, not all women have the opportunity to stay at home and there will always be women who need to work, but we should not be patronising and put pressure on those who want to look after their children. Many of those women want to return to work part time. There are part-time jobs in many spheres, but it is not always possible for a highly trained person to return to work part time.
  Last week, representatives of the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority were in the House, talking about the high-risk behaviour of young people. We discussed the possibility of attracting back to work very highly qualified nurses—including intensive care nurses—who are desperately needed. Many cannot return to work after having children, because of the hours of their duties.
  A woman told me that the health authority was considering introducing a scheme whereby such people might be brought in on call—some of their work might be planned—but the authority would undertake not to call them in during school holidays. That would mean that they could return to work and do that dedicated, necessary work, yet they would not have the problem of finding child care for a long school holiday, which many of them do not want to do. They want to be at home when their children are there, and we could help; we could encourage mothers to go back to work in all sorts of different sectors. We all recognise that it is much easier for women to have an uninterrupted career if they do not have children.
  A few short years ago, there was a high commissioner in London from one of the African countries; she was a large, beautiful, black lady. She had four children and we often discussed equal opportunities. I asked her whether there were equal opportunities for women in her country. She said, "Yes, of course there are—here I am. But you and I must realise that there will never be truly equal opportunities until the men start having the babies." She is right; any woman who has had a child has a certain bond with him or her. However good a father is, I do not believe that he will ever have the same natural bond with that child.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend will have seen today the disturbing—I use that word neutrally—news that it is now possible genetically to engineer babies, both animal and human, without, as far as I understand it, the intervention of either male or female. Does that not put today's debate in an interesting, if challenging, context?
  Mr. Sebastian Coe: New labour.
  Mrs. Peacock: I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has to say. I was not suggesting that we should start cloning or that women who want children should dispense with men altogether. I am not in favour of that.
  We have heard much about the Beijing conference, which was well attended. It was disgraceful that the conference was held in Beijing. I take issue with the
  496
  Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham—because of its human rights record and everything else happening there, Beijing was not a good place in which to hold the conference. Non-governmental organisations were housed—if one can call it that—many kilometres from the conference centre. What is the point of having a conference for women if half of them are housed so many kilometres away that they cannot attend it?
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton about China's terrible record on female babies. I wonder whether my hon. Friends have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with Kate Blewett—a sensible, level-headed individual, who went to China and made the film "The Dying Rooms". If they have not, I suggest that they do so and listen to her. I saw the film, as did many
  others; it was almost unbearable to watch. Kate Blewett was in China and, for me, her film was a great lesson in humanity. It was said afterwards that the film makers created the situations, but I do not believe that. I believe that they filmed the situations that they found. It must give us cause for concern that any country should still abandon its female babies. We need not rely merely on Kate Blewett's film; there are gaps in the statistics, and the number of females in China is changing, which seems to be due to the action being taken.
  I started by saying that I did not know why we had this debate. However, if it is held, I need to put my views. I hope that we can be much more constructive and not hark back to what should have been done many years ago. Great progress has been made in recent years; that becomes evident when one considers the young women emerging from school. They are much more confident and better qualified and equipped to take their place in the future. I am sure that, within the next decade, the number of women on both sides of the House will have increased, which will be most welcome.
  5.53 pm
  Ms Jean Corston: As other hon. Members have said, last September the United Kingdom signed up to the platform for action at the fourth world conference on women. The signatories to that conference reaffirmed their commitment to
  "Promote women's economic independence, including employment, and eradicate the persistent and increasing burden of poverty on women by addressing the structural causes of poverty through changes in economic structures".
  But far too many women in this country, and throughout the world, are on low and unequal pay.
  In this country, 2.3 million people earn less than £3.50 an hour and three quarters of them are women. Some 800,000 women earn less than £2.50 an hour and women are twice as likely as men to be low paid. Despite the fact that, on average, women are now said to receive 79 per cent. of men's pay, many women's pay is as low as 63 per cent. of men's. A woman hairdresser generally earns about £130 a week; her male counterpart is paid £159. A woman sales assistant takes home £155 a week; a man doing the same job receives £195. In 1994, 559,000 women were doing two jobs and running their homes in order to make ends meet.
  As the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) rightly said, women are remarkably skilled—and not just in crisis management. If they have run a home, had a job and

  497
  brought up two or more children—as many of us have—they learn about crisis management, budgeting, long-term planning, dispute resolution, conflict avoidance and critical path analysis. Some big companies spend vast amounts of money on training and instilling those skills in their senior managers. But those skills, as women's skills, are not regarded as particularly valuable—that is a great loss to business and society.
  It is not right to say that women work for pin money. When I was first married, most women did not work, but most men earned a wage that allowed them to support their wives and children and pay the mortgage. Increasingly, as wages are driven down, women have to work. Many women say to me, "You were lucky to have that choice. It is not available to me. I had to go back to work as soon as I possibly could simply to help my husband pay the mortgage."
  Lone mothers fare particularly badly. The Department of Social Security's research report No. 25, of 1994, is entitled "Lone Parents and Work". That Government report found that nearly all lone parents are women; only 23 per cent. of them are in full-time work and of those with a child under five, only 9 per cent. are in work. The typical net earnings of those women amount to £130 a week and one fifth of them in full-time jobs take home less than £80. It is undoubtedly true that affordable child care is beyond their reach and they use all sorts of informal means to help them look after their children. We would not necessarily approve of all those methods, as they do not provide the sort of stimulation that children require in order to develop. Those women need a minimum wage and decent job training.
  Mr. Coe: In the past few minutes, the hon. Lady—like the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell)—has laid considerable stress on the importance of a minimum wage. At what level would she introduce it?
  Ms Corston: What is important about a minimum wage is that it sets a floor under wages. Will the hon. Gentleman go to Falmouth and Camborne and tell good employers that they are subsidising bad employers through the taxation system by topping up low pay with family credit to the tune of £2 billion, which is an utter disgrace?
  A minimum wage would not destroy jobs. There is no evidence of that anywhere. A minimum wage would put a floor under wages. The rate will be announced by the next Labour Government when we take office. The Tories do not tell the British public the truth about the economy. To find out whether that is right or wrong, one has only to remember the mess that Conservative Governments left for Labour Governments to mop up every time they left office.
  Mrs. Lait: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Corston: No. I should make progress. I shall give way later.
  Poverty dogs women into old age. [Interruption.] The Minister may find that funny, but it is true. Women are much less likely to have occupational pensions. The career breaks that they take to bring up children make it difficult for them to build up entitlement to pensions, and
  498
  they often pay the reduced rate of national insurance. In many cases, their pay is so low that they cannot take out private pensions.
  The 1975 scheme that was introduced by a Labour Government represented a partnership between the state and private sectors. When the scheme matured 25 years later, it would have substantially reduced the risk of poverty, especially for women and one of the blights of our age—the severe impoverishment of older women, especially those over 75—would have been overcome. Women were to be awarded pensions on the basis of paid work and their caring work in the family. Not only does the Pensions Act 1995 phase in an increase in women's pension age, but the withdrawal from SERPS will increase the numbers of women who are forced into poverty. From 1988, the 20-years rule was abandoned, so periods of low earnings because of caring responsibilities can no longer be ignored.
  I refer the House to an early-day motion tabled this week by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson). It relates to a woman in her constituency who is 59 years old and has married for the second time having previously been married for 22 years. Her second husband is nine years younger than her, so she will have no entitlement to a pension until she is 75. Had she not married him, she would be entitled to £19 a week on the basis of her first husband's contributions. During 22 years of marriage, she looked after the home and cared for four children while paying a reduced stamp. By the age of 75, she will have lost £14,000. That is a huge sum of money for older women on low pay.
  One of the greatest problems is that women are not treated as individuals in their own right for pension purposes, but as adjuncts to their husbands or men with whom they have live-in relationships.
  At Beijing the Government reaffirmed a commitment to the
  "equal sharing of responsibilities for the family by men and women",
  but we are the only European Union country not to have a commitment to parental leave.
  The all-party group on parenting, of which I am an officer, heard evidence for four weeks in the summer of 1994. At panel hearings, we consulted a broad spectrum of individuals and organisations representing parents, businesses, banks and the Churches. They all said how important it was to involve men in caring for children.
  One of our recommendations was for parental leave. That was endorsed by the Conservative Members on the all-party group who saw evidence of the need for it. The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who was on the panel, was also committed to that statement. It was unfortunate for him that he was appointed a Whip on the day that the report was published. I appreciate that it must have caused him some embarrassment, but he supported the recommendation at the time.
  One of the most imaginative documents that I saw was produced in 1985 by the Swedish Government, who stated that they had the responsibility not only to increase the participation of women in the labour market on an equal basis, but to ensure that children were not located in a world of women. They stressed the importance of labour market measures to enable men to discharge their responsibilities as fathers and carers, because that was good for men, children and families.

  499
  If the responsibility for children is to be shared more equally, there has to be decent and affordable child care. The Government's nursery vouchers are likely to threaten provision for three-year-olds in the local authority sector. I recently met governors and parents—primarily women—at a nursery school called The Limes in my constituency. It is currently run by Avon county council and from next month it will be run by the Bristol unitary authority. Those people were concerned that the nursery education provided for three-year-olds through the "high scope" scheme, which encourages self-discipline, co-operation and an imaginative approach to learning, may well be threatened by the provision of vouchers for four-year-olds. Those vouchers are likely to help only the better-off. I welcome Labour's commitment to nursery education for three and four-year-olds.
  Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Corston: No. The Minister spoke for nearly 50 minutes and the Government will have the opportunity to reply to the debate. I have only a short speech, although I may give way later if the Minister will listen.
  The Beijing declaration also stated that we were determined to
  "prevent and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls".
  However, the fear of crime among women is reaching massive proportions. The 1992 British crime survey showed that 49 per cent. of women feel unsafe walking alone at night, seven out of 10 women lock their car doors when driving alone during the day and at night and two thirds of women are afraid of parking in multistorey car parks. A 1994 MORI poll shows that four out of five women said that their fear of crime had "increased a lot" in recent years.
  Women are told to say indoors, but in 1991 almost half of all assaults were classified as domestic incidents. Women are likely to be assaulted at home, but they are frightened of going out, so they are entitled to ask where they are safe. Although we need refuges—we still do not have the number of refuges recommended by the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage in 1975—and sensitive and prompt police procedures, that is only half the solution. We should also underpin local authorities' zero tolerance campaigns.
  In a recent debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Chisholm) told the House about Edinburgh's zero tolerance campaign, which sounded marvellous. Public information made it absolutely clear that violence against partners and children was utterly unacceptable male behaviour that should stop.
  Mrs. Peacock: I agree with the hon. Lady. My local authority has a zero tolerance campaign. As I said in my speech, as women and mothers, we have to educate our very small boys that violence is not acceptable. Only if we start right at the beginning, will we have any hope of preventing them from going out into the world when they are older and beating up their own wives and partners, or perhaps an elderly lady. That supports the view that mothers should stay at home with their children, at least in the early years.
  Ms Corston: I could not agree more. It is obviously vital that we teach children as young as possible that they
  500
  should respect each other and do not have the right to assault other people. It is also important to make it possible for families to function in that way—not all families do. That is one reason why families should be at the heart of Government policy. It is inappropriate that zero tolerance campaigns are left to cash-strapped local authorities. There should be more than a video, a pamphlet or a statement announcing a campaign: national campaign material should be distributed making it clear that the macho culture—which I deplore—must not extend to relationships within the home.
  Beijing also agreed that women should have access to power, which involves confronting the institutional nature of sexism and of racism. The Labour party has attempted to do that by increasing the representation of women in Parliament. I welcome that move. After the next election, there will be 80 or 90 women of remarkably high calibre on the Labour side. People will see how they contribute to our parliamentary process, and they will say, "Why weren't women like that elected before? Perhaps it was because it was a male-dominated place with entrenched barriers to women. It was high time that a political party acknowledged that institutionalised sexism."
  Mrs. Gillan: Does the hon. Lady agree that the barriers were not in this place but in the Labour constituency parties? They forced the Labour party to select women candidates and to discriminate against men, thereby breaking the very legislation that Labour is so proud of having introduced.
  Ms Corston: A resounding majority of Labour party members voted for the measure two years running. More importantly, the Minister cannot preach to us about women Members of Parliament: the Conservatives have only 19 and they will have even fewer after the next election.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The Conservatives could not even keep the ones they had: one female Member of Parliament crossed the Floor.
  Ms Corston: Indeed.
  I do not want to suggest that it has been all downhill since women were given the vote and began to have equal access to the professions. My daughter is a doctor and she is the first woman to achieve professional qualifications in my or her father's families. However, isolated instances such as that do not reveal the situation of all women.
  In the past few weeks, the Home Affairs Select Committee—of which I have the honour to be a member—has heard evidence from the following organisations: the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Building Societies Association, the British Bankers Association, the British Retail Consortium, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Consumer Council, Justice, Liberty and the Data Protection Registrar. I am pleased to say that all those organisations were represented by women—that would not have been the case 10 or 20 years ago—and it was interesting to note the surprise expressed by my male colleagues on the Committee.
  I dare say that some of those women will come up against glass ceilings. We must not reproduce patterns of inequality by pulling up the ladder and saying that,

  501
  because some women have at long last begun to enter the professions—even if at low levels—everything has been achieved. By doing so, we ignore the reality of the lives of millions of our female constituents: reinforcing inequalities between women is no substitute for providing equal opportunities for all women.
  I am very glad that the Government have been shamed into holding a debate on women's issues in their own time during International Women's Week. The Labour party initiated such debates two years ago during International Women's Week and on both occasions Labour Members have done their best to raise issues that concern women. Labour's parliamentary record in that regard cannot be matched on the Government side. I welcome the debate.
  6.13 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. My contribution will be brief: I understand that we must not detain the House, as the socialists are giving a party to which we are all invited. Therefore, we obviously do not wish to debate the subject on the Adjournment until 10 pm.
  I congratulate the Government on all that they have achieved in enabling women to participate fully in the public, political and the commercial life of this country. We should recognise that great strides have been made in the past few years in creating a climate in which women have benefited from the training and the opportunities that have enabled them to fulfil their potential and to play a part in all aspects of our society.
  It is a matter of record that our head of state is a woman and that the head of the established Church is a woman—although obviously it is the same woman. Until relatively recently, a woman was our head of Government, Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party—and what an excellent leader she was. Women are represented in the Cabinet—on the basis of merit and not tokenism, I hasten to add—and in every tier of government.
  Within the Conservative party, it is a matter of fact that the overwhelming majority of local activists are women and that women hold key positions in many local associations. The leader of my local council is a woman, although she does not share my political views. Based upon my experience of political life and my career to date, I must confess that I have found doors that are open for women but not for men. The courtesy that gentlemen Members extend to those of my gender is much appreciated—long may it continue. Vive la difference, as our French colleagues might say.
  As one who is honoured to serve on Madam Speaker's Chairmen's Panel, I welcome the fact that, for the first time in our history, the Speaker is a woman. That sends a clear message and stands as an excellent example to women that they can, on the basis of their own abilities, rise to the highest office in the land.
  I reject entirely the suggestion that we need more women in the House simply to ensure that women's issues receive greater priority. Like all hon. Members, I consider carefully all issues that are brought before the House and all problems that are highlighted in questions on the strength of the arguments and not according to the gender of those who raise them. I think that all hon. Members,
  502
  irrespective of gender, have a duty and an obligation to represent to the best of their ability all their constituents: male and female, adults and children.
  At the same time, I believe that the House should turn its attention to the urgent need to abolish entirely the Equal Opportunities Commission—a divisive and anachronistic body which has no place in a modern, civilised democracy with universal suffrage. My research, conducted through a series of parliamentary questions, has revealed that that quango—which is responsible for ending sexism in employment practices and which professes to have its own equal opportunities policy—numbers among its employees 140 women and only 30 men. That represents 82.4 per cent. and 17.6 per cent. respectively of its work force. Of the commissioners appointed to run the body, eight are women and only three are men.
  We do not know yet the gender of the new Welsh commissioner who will be appointed shortly. I thought that Opposition Members would have something to say about those statistics, and I look forward to the winding-up speeches. That deplorable imbalance in the gender profile of employees and the commissioners is totally unacceptable and inconsistent with the statutory principles that the commission is supposed to uphold. As that body receives a staggering £6 million each year from the taxpayer, we have every right to expect better from it.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Minister with as much courtesy as I can summon that I was dismayed by the manner in which she opened the debate, and appalled by what she had to say. When she winds up, perhaps she will explain how much more the EOC will cost taxpayers through the addition of another commissioner, and how the organisation will be financed in future.
  For too long, nostrums from our discredited corporatist past have been allowed to be peddled by persons who have built an entire industry on the back of once genuine concerns about discrimination against women. It is time that the House took the bit between its teeth and acted to abolish such commissions.
  In all my research to date, I have found only one other commission with a record as poor as the EOC, and it is the Commission for Racial Equality. Of its staff of 212, 62—or 29 per cent.—are from the main white ethnic group that constitutes more than 94 per cent. of the population, while 150 of the CRE's staff—or 71 per cent.—are from ethnic minorities. That hardly sets a good example to other employers, particularly when closer examination reveals that, even among the ethnic employees, Asians are discriminated against in favour of black employees on a sixfold basis.
  The CRE, which consumes a staggering £16 million of taxpayers' money every year, is doing a disservice to women and men from ethnic and indigenous populations alike. If the two commissions were scrapped, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would immediately have £22 million extra to spend on creating genuine opportunities for women in society through the provision of more nursery places, reviewing child benefit, providing better breast cancer screening and a myriad of other practical and concrete ways. One of them was highlighted in an effective intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter).
  Before I was selected as the prospective parliamentary candidate for Congleton and eventually elected, I enjoyed some of the happiest and most fulfilling days of my life

  503
  as a wife and mother. In our wish to ensure commercial and political success for women, let us never forget the vital role that wives perform in supporting their husbands—and their more vital role in nurturing their children. I am a wife, a mother of three children and a grandmother of six—and I am sure that there is potential for more. I am as proud of those personal achievements and those of my children as I am of the professional achievements that I have had the good fortune to experience.
  Young women leaving school and college today are far brighter and more confident, and are better prepared for life, than we were. However, they should never feel pressured into pursuing a career if that is not their wish. In many societies throughout the world, there is no more honoured an individual than a mother. Her role is deeply rewarding and fulfilling, although a little taxing at times. Society should acknowledge the great service done by the mothers of the nation, whose vocation is one to pursue with pride.
  6.24 pm
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: I am delighted that the House has the opportunity to debate equal opportunities for women in a week that celebrates International Women's Day. A belief in equality of opportunity for all is a cornerstone of my philosophy as a Liberal Democrat. There is much agreement in all parts of the House on the measures needed to ensure equality of opportunity for women. One area of disagreement is how far that objective has been met.
  When I was younger, I was told the riddle about a man and his son who were out driving. Their car was involved in a terrible accident. The father was killed and the son was rushed to hospital for an emergency operation. The surgeon looked at the child and said, "I cannot perform the operation. This boy is my son." My children do not see the point of that story, because they accept that the surgeon could be the boy's mother.
  The statistics suggest that equality has not advanced far, because 96 per cent. of top-grade surgeons are men. It is not as if women do not enter the health service. Of 420,000 nurses, 360,000 are women. The traditional dividing line of the sexes can still be seen throughout the national health service. Fifty-eight per cent. of assistant general practitioners are women, but only 24 per cent. are principal GPs. Eighty per cent. of nurses and midwives are women, but only 24 per cent. of dentists are women. Nurses and midwives do not earn as much money as people working in other parts of the NHS.
  A similar pattern is found in other professions. Nearly half of university administrative staff are women, but only one quarter are junior lecturers—and only one in 20 is a professor. One sixth of police constables are women, but only one of the 103 chief and deputy chief constables is a woman.
  Mr. Piers Merchant: Does the hon. Lady accept that a person cannot suddenly be appointed to a senior post without working his or her way through the ranks and gaining experience? If one wants an accurate measure of current trends, one should look at progress in lower age groups. For example, among solicitors aged below 30, more are women than men.
  Mrs. Maddock: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point, but I was reviewing the current situation, which shows that there is still inequality in some professions.
  Last year, I asked a number of parliamentary questions to establish the proportion of women civil servants in various grades. The answers from the different Departments totalled 21,000 deskbound civil servants, but fewer than 3,000 of them were women. When I checked again last summer, I found that, of the 30 permanent secretaries, only two were women and neither was running a Ministry of her own. It is a case of too many Humphreys and not enough dames.
  Today, the Hansard Society published a report called "Women at the Top: Progress after Five Years", and the news was not as good as many people would have liked or had hoped. On average—and we have heard some statistics already—women working full time are still paid only 79 per cent. per hour of what their male counterparts earn.
  Mrs. Gillan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Maddock: I shall give way when I have reached the end of this section. I am sure that the Minister's point will still be relevant.
  A large majority of those earning less than half the national average wage are women. The majority of pensioners on income support, and 90 per cent. of lone parents, are women. The vast majority of those with primary responsibility for caring for children or the elderly and sick are women, again often on very low incomes.
  Mrs. Gillan: I wished to raise a point about the Hansard Society report, which was delivered to my desk this morning, and I was delighted to receive it. The report is not all doom and gloom. The Hansard Society's press release says that women now have a better chance of top jobs and appointments, but there is "no room for relaxation." That is very good news and the hon. Lady should welcome it. Women have a better chance, and that means that the improvements I mentioned are kicking in throughout society.
  Mrs. Maddock: I do not dispute that, but the point that I was making was that many of us were disappointed that the figures were not better, because we have tried to improve the situation for some years, and some of us are a little frustrated that improvement is not as fast as we would like.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The Minister has just said that the report said that women now have a better chance. Surely the news is not as good as she would lead us to believe, because women have only a better chance in contrast to what was no chance at all.
  Mrs. Maddock: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is still the case that, although women constitute 44 per cent. of the United Kingdom work force, they represent only 20 per cent. of managers and 2 per cent. of senior executives. The situation is still not good.
  Of course, inequality is not just present in the workplace, but enshrined in law. I wish to raise a problem that was alluded to by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) earlier. In my constituency recently, I came across a lady called Helen MacGregor. Her situation

  505
  shows how the tax system still works against women. The additional personal tax allowance that is given to married men whose wives are disabled cannot be claimed by married women whose husbands are disabled. The amount involved is £1,720—nearly £2,000. The allowance is to be uprated this year.
  Helen MacGregor, my constituent, works as a part-time veterinary assistant. Her husband is severely disabled and confined to a wheelchair. If she were the one in the wheelchair, her husband would be entitled to the additional personal allowance, but as things stand, she is not. That seems to me to be blatant sexual discrimination by the Treasury and the Government.
  The legislation dates back to the time when it was assumed that every wife stayed at home looking after the children and the allowance was supposed to compensate husbands of disabled women for the cost of employing a housekeeper. The Secretary of State for Health, when he was the Financial Secretary, admitted that, if we were starting from scratch today, the Government would not have invented any allowance that went only to men. The Secretary of State for Transport, when he was Financial Secretary, said that he agreed that it was anomalous that a married man with children whose wife was totally incapacitated was able to claim the additional personal allowance, whereas a wife in similar circumstances could not.
  The present Financial Secretary, in Committee on the Finance Bill last month, told my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that he recognised that the provision might well be regarded as anachronistic, but the Government did not promise to do anything about it. In correspondence with me, the Government have hinted openly that they will abolish the allowance for men too, if people make too much fuss. That would not encourage carers to go out to work.
  If we can obtain some support today from both sides of the House for the extension of the allowance to women—the matter has been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House in the past few years—I hope that we shall push the Government into doing away with such disgraceful and blatant discrimination.
  Finance is one of the real drawbacks in equality of opportunity for women, especially in pensions. The lack of pension provision for some women has been mentioned already. Two thirds of those over retirement age and four fifths of those over 85 are women. Women have borne the brunt of the decline in value of the state pension in relation to earnings. Women who spend time at home caring for children or older people often forfeit their full state entitlement, because they forgo the opportunity to make full national insurance contributions. Yet, as I think we all agree, the work they do is no less valid.
  Because women sometimes spend years out of employment, or because they are working part time, they have much less chance to make decent pension provision, whether in occupational or in personal pensions. Therefore, women are much more reliant than men on the state pension, but 85 per cent. of women do not receive a full state pension. In fact, half of all women pensioners live on less than £50 a week and the current pension safety net is simply not adequate for many pensioners,
  506
  who are overwhelmingly women. We need to change the system so that a pension is based not on contributions, but on residency.
  I welcome some of the comments that have been made today about splitting pensions when couples divorce. I hope that our debate today will have some force in persuading the Government to support the amendments that were made in another place.
  Another real problem for women is part-time work. Women lose out and they get a bad deal, because more than half of the women who go out to work do so on a part-time basis. More than 5 million women work part time in Britain, compared with 1 million men. In the past, many of those jobs have been traditional jobs for women, such as cleaning and waiting, but increasingly part-time work has spread to cover almost every area of work.
  Part-time workers lose in a number of ways. On average, they earn less pro rata than their full-time counterparts. They are generally more insecure than full-timers, partly as a result of the rules governing redundancy. Because part-timers are more likely than full-timers to stay in the same job for less than two years, they generally have less recourse to employment law. Part-time workers get less training than full-time workers and they have fewer opportunities to progress up the career ladder. A TUC survey recently found that 41 per cent. of people working fewer than 20 hours a week received no training at all. Overwhelmingly, it is women who are losing in that way.
  On Tuesday this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) introduced a Bill to deal with the lack of any statutory paid holiday entitlement for part-time workers—one of the greatest injustices they face. Britain is unique among European Union countries in offering no legal right to paid annual leave for part-time employees. Women who try to do their best to look after their families have great difficulty when their children are on holiday. Many part-time workers are given a pitiful amount of holiday time, if they get any at all. They often face uncertainty right up to the last minute as to whether they can take any leave. That particularly affects women, with their important caring role.
  That problem acts as a deterrent to many women thinking of taking up part-time work or jobs generally. Part of the solution lies in employers learning to value part-time workers more. There is a great deal that the Government can do. Next week, we shall be unveiling our Liberal Democrat guarantee for part-time workers: a set of 11 measures that would result in better-paid, more highly skilled and more contented work forces. That would represent a huge boost for the 5 million women in part-time work and the many more who would like to be, but who are denied the opportunity because of the difficulties associated with current practices.
  One reason why so many women take up part-time instead of full-time employment is the difficulty they would face fitting in full-time work with their family responsibilities. An eight-hour day is difficult enough; is it any wonder, therefore, that we find it difficult to persuade women to enter Parliament, where we certainly do more than an eight-hour day? We have heard a great deal about the difficulties of getting women on short-lists, but I think that many women are not attracted here in the first place because they believe that it is a male-dominated society. Having been here for nearly three years, I agree with

  507
  them. Many women have told me that they are more interested in working for outside bodies or local councils, because the atmosphere there is better and they can get on and do things. They see this place as a talking shop, not a place of action.
  Financial affairs remain an area that presents obstacles to equality of opportunity for women; breaking into male-dominated circles is another. During my time here, we have occasionally debated how to get more women into Parliament, and I do not propose to go into detail about that tonight. I must reiterate, however—things have changed in the past year—the Liberal Democrat view that our system of political representation works against more women coming to Parliament.
  A much better way to get them here would be to change our voting system in favour of one that encouraged a wider range of candidates generally. Our first-past-the-post system fails to offer political parties any incentive to promote a balanced ticket, in terms of gender, race and so on, of candidates. Systems of proportional representation used by other European countries almost always result in more women being elected, as well as in a fairer division of seats among the political parties.
  In Denmark, for instance, 33 per cent. of Members of Parliament are women, and in Germany, 20 per cent. are, but in the United Kingdom, only 9 per cent. are women. To help with the problem of accountability to constituents, a single transferable vote system would encourage political parties to put up more women candidates, and would allow voters a choice between candidates of the same party, thereby allowing people who wanted to vote for a woman candidate to do so. At the same time, they could list their party preferences—
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: The hon. Lady is making a very important point. Has she considered its implications? She would succeed only in destroying the single-Member constituency system, which means that, once a Member is elected, he or she is responsible for representing all constituents, irrespective of his or her party. The other result would be that more power would be centralised in the hands of the party hierarchy. Is that really what she wants?
  Mrs. Maddock: I do not agree. In my part of the country, Dorset, I am the only Opposition Member and the only woman Member. Some people want to be represented both by a woman and by another party. Multi-Member constituencies would allow the people of Dorset that choice. After all, it is done successfully elsewhere, and a growing number of people here think that it would be a good idea.
  Members of my party—a minority party—often get taken to task for speaking too long in these debates, as I fear I did the last time I spoke. I shall therefore draw my remarks to a conclusion. It is important that all our parties develop policies to promote women in our parties and in other organisations, and encourage them to participate. That goes for fair elections, not just to Parliament but to other bodies. My party uses the single transferable vote for elections to all tiers of the party, which results in a fair representation of women running the party at all levels. We need to encourage women to be confident, and we must ensure that they have the training and skills to fulfil themselves and to achieve real equality of opportunity.
  508
  There are still many anomalies in our tax and benefits system, of the type that I mentioned earlier. I have heard some encouraging speeches in today's debate, and I hope that a commitment will emerge from it, on both sides of the House and particularly from Ministers, to look again at the case of my constituent, Helen MacGregor, and at all the other problems in our tax and benefits system. We are all in favour of equality of opportunity and against blatant discrimination in legislation. That is why I hope that the Minister who winds up will offer the House a commitment to think again about those problems. That would indeed be a practical achievement to emerge from International Women's Day.
  6.48 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: We were told at the beginning of the debate that this is the third time we have debated equal opportunities for women. These debates are beginning to give me the creeps. They seem to suggest that women are a different species, not just people like everyone else. I hope that this is the last time we hold such a debate, and that we can then begin to be treated as equals here. That would be no bad thing.
  I do not deny that women do not always get a fair crack of the whip in some aspects of national life. I have introduced at least five 10-minute Bills to try to improve the number of women in the House; to help women who cohabit but are discriminated against in law; and to do something about women who want to earn a bit of money by letting out rooms to lodgers without being done by the tax man or some other inspector. There are many practical, sensible things that we in this House can do to improve the lot of women.
  I do not deny that there is chauvinism in the House. Indeed, I sat here this afternoon and heard the deputy leader of the Labour party make some very sexist remarks about me—and agist remarks too—very loudly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Yes: he commented on my age. I do not want to repeat it, because I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman more than I already have. I hope that he will apologise at the Dispatch Box for what he said. I know that the women on the Opposition Benches will give him a hard time for it—and rightly, too.
  I should like to deal with some of the clichés, the old canards and—I hate to say—sacred cows that come up every time we have one of these debates. First, there is the 76p an hour point, and how women are always being behind men in the wages struggle. When we talk about hourly rates, we are not comparing like with like. If one examines the statistics for women who have the same career pattern as men, the same professional qualifications and have worked for the same time, one finds that they receive the same rates for the job as men, just as we do in the House.
  Although it may be true that the average wage for women is 76p an hour, it does not necessarily mean anything. The balance of pay between a man and a woman in a comparable job is slewed by the number of individuals who work different hours, and so on. We keep on hearing the old chestnut that women are not doing as well, of which we all have to be aware, yet it is not always true.
  It is not true either that women work only for money. People do not work just for money—they work because it gets them out of the home as well. Perhaps they are

  509
  sometimes prepared to work for a little less money because the work is more flexible and they can get time off to look after the children or take them to the dentist. All those factors are taken into account when evaluating a job.
  Sometimes, by pressing the business of equal pay, women end up losing out. The Equal Opportunities Commission, which my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has already mentioned, has greatly damaged women by insisting that absolutely everything in employment is identical for men and women. It has often forced women who had the option to take time off to suit their family needs into exactly the same work pattern as men, including night shifts, handling unpleasant and dirty materials, and other jobs that they do not want to do.
  Statistics show that, when equal work conditions for police officers were introduced and women had to work night shifts, the police force lost many women officers because they were not prepared to work the hours. The Equal Opportunities Commission secured that privilege for women, but I do not think that those women thought that it was a privilege at all. When we in this House meddle and try to make everything seem equal, we often do not do women a good turn at all.
  When we hear that 12 million women are in work—jolly good job, too—we should remember that the jobs were given to them not by Parliament but by employers. Opposition Members always excoriate employers, as if they are cruel, unkind and beastly to their employees. Employers choose to employ women partly because of their skills. The nature of work has changed. Work used to be in the old smokestack industries, which were not conducive to women. Who wanted to shovel coal into a furnace all day long, bash lumps of metal around or do heavy labour?
  Nowadays, the market is coming to women. Women are much better, much more dextrous and more skilled at using modern technological equipment, and are very prominent in assembly industries involving the microtechnology that we all take for granted these days. In fact, one could say that the market, not politicians, and certainly not the Equal Opportunities Commission, is providing women with opportunities to work.
  Every time the Equal Opportunities Commission takes some poor employer through a show trial where a woman makes £30,000 or £300,000 out of her employer and it gets all over the papers, believe me, an awful lot of employers say to themselves, "I won't put myself in that position." Employers, especially small employers, cannot afford the sums of money awarded by the tribunal, and think twice before employing women. If a show trial isperhaps—to do with women and pregnancy, employers might think twice about taking on a young woman.
  When we crow about new regulations and protection for women, we should realise that, although we may think that they are a good idea, the person giving out the job is not a politician, and has to accommodate his profit and loss accounts. If he cannot afford, as is proposed, to give three months leave in a year to any parent of a child under eight years old—if the parent happens to have four children, compassionate leave could amount to a whole year off—he will think twice about employing women in that relevant age bracket.
  510
  Of course, that is good for us older women—there will be more jobs for us—but it does not help women generally. All the do-goodery and self-congratulation in which we indulge in this place often has the opposite effect from that we intend.
  I want to say a good word for employers, because they very rarely hear it in the House. We should remind ourselves that we should be a little more humble when we are dictating terms that affect them. Very few of us in this place have had the opportunity to create employment.
  Ms Corston: Does the hon. Lady support the Employers for Child Care blueprint?
  Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I have not yet read the document, but I shall make a great effort to do so, since she has brought it to my attention.
  The state is one of the most reactionary of all employers—right from the very bottom in the health service to the top, where, as we recently witnessed in papers, a highly qualified woman who was next in line to be a representative in one of the Ministries abroad, Pauline Neville—
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Jones.
  Mrs. Gorman: What? Jones? Pauline Neville-Jones, that will do. She should have been next in line to work for the Foreign Office in—I think—Paris, and it tried to dump her in Bonn. She has now got a much better job outside the civil service.
  I am old enough to remember that women teachers used to be dumped as soon as they were married. A commercial employer, however, looks for the best value for money from the people he employs, who are very often, and increasingly, women.
  The people who have given real equal opportunities to women are the men who invented the washing machine, the vacuum cleaner and the contraceptive pill. All those things emancipated women from the drudgery of looking after the family home—scrubbing, cleaning, ironing until the small hours, scraping potatoes, cooking for hours and hours. Thank God for the ready-food industry, oven-ready chips, and Marks and Spencer's meals. They have emancipated me and given me my equal opportunity to add my fourpen'orth to this debate.
  The guru of the left, Simone de Beauvoir, a great writer on women's affairs, said in "The Second Sex" that capitalism had done more to emancipate women and grant them equal opportunities than socialism. I thought that Opposition Members would like to know that. Perhaps they would like to pick up a copy from the Library.
  Mr. Rowe: In the vein of my hon. Friend's argument, may I suggest that she might like to put another plaque on the well-known statue "the burghers of Calais", which is on the lawn outside the House of Lords, saying "the hamburgers of Westminster"?
  Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I deplore the fact that there is not a single statue in the House of any of the women who have contributed to it over the years. Until very recently, the

  511
  picture of Lady Astor, the first woman to take a seat in the House, hung outside the men's lavatories in the basement, until we kicked up merry hell about it.
  It took a little exhibition last year to celebrate 70 years since we had been given the vote, which I helped to stage with hon. Members from all parties, to get a little plaque put up in the Lobby coming up from Westminster Hall to acknowledge the fact that the suffragettes had to hammer on the door of the House before they were allowed in to speak to their Members of Parliament. That is all wonderful stuff. I recognise that the suffragettes did a wonderful job, but they did not get us into this place in great numbers.
  Many women are still trying to get into the House. There is the old canard, "How are we to get women into the House of Commons?" Like women Labour Members, I do not believe in positive discrimination. We know that male Labour Members similarly do not agree with that approach. They do not believe in that positive discrimination stuff, as we well know. If we are to have more women in this place, we must change the franchise.
  I disagree with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock)—what did she advocate?
  Mrs. Maddock: The single transferable vote.
  Mrs. Gorman: I do not like the STV. I have, however, advocated the view of Bernard Shaw, who was a socialist, that we should have a male and a female Member for every constituency. That does not mean doubling the number of Members in this place. Instead, it means in each constituency having all-men and all-women lists. That would remove the sexist battle.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend recognise that, in south-east Cheshire, we already have that system?
  Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend's example is one of perfection. I do not say that it is necessary to marry the bloke in the next-door constituency, although he may be a desirable person.
  There are ways of bringing desirable ends to fruition instead of whingeing about women as if they are another species to whom we must do good. That is too defensive.
  Women are becoming more equal, or getting better deals out of society, partly because of medical advances. I have already mentioned the pill. Everyone in this place, if not soon throughout the world, knows that I advocate hormone replacement treatment for older women. It is something that keeps them firing on all cylinders, as I hope I am doing now.
  Women bear the burden of child rearing. But they do not want to become worn out, exhausted and unable to do very much else except go into decline. It is not necessary now to take that course. A woman can enjoy the best years of her life in post-menopausal age. At the same time, HRT will save her from osteoporosis, heart attacks, strokes and all the other horrible things that might happen. Medical developments have done much to help women. I dare say that many of these advances have been brought about by men. I have nothing against men—in fact, I quite like them.
  There has been a change in the role of women. We were household drudges. When were we able to come out and do so much stuff in public life? Most of the great
  512
  women who achieved enormous things in the past as writers, explorers and even as scientists, like Marie Curie, were not married. Even fewer of them had children to raise. As has been said, the raising of children is an immensely important occupation for women, and one that should not be denigrated. We should not belittle women who choose it as their career.
  In the past, however, we have been chattels. We were not allowed to inherit. As soon as we married, we were treated as if everything that we owned belonged to our husbands. We did not have proper pensions. By and large, we were tied to the kitchen sink or the typist's chair. The typist's chair, of course, has become one of the most important areas of an office. Being in command of the word processor and the computer gives a woman control over all the men who are working in the office, because they are desperate to obtain information, and it is all tucked up in the computer. In that situation, men had better be nice to women.
  A good computer programmer is worth her weight in gold. Salaries for women in that sector are on a par with those for men. We have talked already about education, which in this context has brought up women. We must not forget, however, that the majority of women—this applies to the majority of men—will not have great educational achievements. But let us say something nice about those who do the routine jobs in society, and give them a little praise for what they do.
  Are the majority of women not household drudges in some ways? To enhance the role of women, it is time we started considering ways to help women who want to go out to work to offset some of the costs involved. I have advocated more than once in this place that employers, in a domestic context or in any other, should be able to offset the wage or salary paid against their gross income. There should be an offset not against the individual's income, if he or she is spending money for home help, child help or help with elderly relatives, but against family income.
  If we treated the family as a small plc, which could employ others and which could offset the ensuing costs against its gross income, we would enhance family life. We would create advantages for those who decide to become a married family. That is a modern way of enhancing that role in society.
  We shall never return to the days when women just remained at home looking after the children. I accept, of course, that there are voices in the House who advocate that the clock should be put back. In reality, however, women want to be able to get outside the home and do other things. That means providing opportunities for women to get out of the home, and providing jobs in the home. I note that the Opposition Chief Whip is frowning as he listens to my proposal. It is clear that he considers it a barmy idea. He should reflect that my proposed scheme is being implemented in Denmark and France.
  In France, as is made clear in this 'ere article now before me, over 1 million people have taken advantage of the scheme. It is simple. It begins with someone wanting to employ someone. If the job is modest and not well paid, the state pays the insurance stamp.
  The scheme has brought enormous numbers of people out of the black economy. If people are employed and paid, there is an advantage in paying tax. I would not like to know how many people in this country employ daily helps and window cleaners, for example, for cash. It is

  513
  better to put such moneys through the family account. Job opportunities are enhanced for many people who are low in skill level but want an occupation.
  Mrs. Lait: Has my hon. Friend calculated the costs in France and in the United Kingdom of employers having to pay a statutory minimum wage, which I believe in France is about £200 a week?
  Mrs. Gorman: I take my hon. Friend's point. The cost might frighten the life out of people and lead them to the conclusion that they could not afford it.
  I hate the idea that we must denigrate those who work for £2 an hour. If that is all they are worth because they are not highly skilled, or if they are willing to accept that rate of pay because the person offering the job cannot afford to pay any more—that may well be the position of someone employing a domestic help in the home—whose business is it but theirs? In this context, we are not talking about jobs in large organisations, companies that may be able to pay relatively high starting rates because of their profit levels.
  Our desire to shove up starting rates of pay often does harm, not only to women who need to take their place on the jobs ladder to recover their skills and move on to other occupations, but to youngsters, who often demand wages that are almost akin to those of adults with experience. The result is unemployment.
  When I ran my own company, I employed women as cleaners. They offered their services as cleaners because those were the jobs on offer. As I was able to assess their abilities, some of them ended up working in the office. Many became managers of departments. That happened because they had the opportunity to start. With a vacancy only for a cleaner, it would be no good if some socialist politician said, "You can't pay the woman that rate—you must pay her more." That might mean doing away with the job and making do with one cleaner instead of two.
  As soon as we start establishing employment rules, we are interfering in a human relationship that is so dependent on the employer's ability to find money for a job to be done. The Equal Opportunities Commission is a daft organisation. It pretends that it is acting to help women when it should be understood that jobs are provided by the private sector, by the market and by the change in the nature of work that is now taking place.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: The hon. Lady was concerned that there should be no interference in relations between employer and employee. Several recent cases have been highlighted in the press of women who have come to Britain, usually with foreign families, who are virtually slaves. They may receive no money; they have no lives of their own, and are often severely maltreated. Surely in such a situation, the hon. Lady would not argue for no interference. Do not such relations between employer and employee cry out for some sort of interference?
  Mrs. Gorman: I take the hon. Lady's point. There is an element of good sense in that. If people are being physically maltreated, the law should take its course. People who work in a foreign country and do not speak the language are vulnerable. The sooner such women find
  514
  their way to the many refuges, which are often run voluntarily and not by the state, that will help them, the better.
  Although I have never employed someone in such a capacity—and except those who do not get out of the house—such people usually know others in Britain who come from their countries. Filipinos often come in such capacities. They soon learn the ropes. Many such people end up taking their employers to industrial tribunals. Not all are put upon, although I agree that the situation the hon. Lady described is a disgrace. They should, and I am sure do, make use of the opportunities that exist to protect themselves physically.
  Last but not least, the women who serve on the Front Benches are the gatekeepers. Having got there, they have the opportunity to choose from among their colleagues. They can do what women in the past have done for those of us who are here today. They will create equal opportunities among their staff, their parliamentary private secretaries and in their general circle. When the Minister replies, I should like to know how many opportunities my colleagues in the Cabinet, or those who are on their way to it—and I congratulate them—are creating.
  It is easy to tell everyone else what to do, but what are we doing? In our own little empire, we have the opportunity to do something. I should like to see equal numbers of women on health service boards and other so-called public bodies. That is something we can we can hand out such opportunities. We do not always live up to the objectives or standards that we set for others. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I congratulate on being such a fine Minister and an example to women, will deal with that.
  7.12 pm
  Ms Glenda Jackson: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), not least for the frisson of disagreement that one always experiences.
  I question some of the facts that she presented. Her opening remarks suggested that there is equal pay for work of equal value, and that the Opposition were making a great fuss about nothing. I refer to the Fawcett Society breakdown of wages for two jobs that would automatically still be regarded as the particular domain of women. A woman working in a laundry earns, on average, £140; a man £160. Among cleaners and domestics, another career for which we as women are expected to have a natural inborn talent, women earn £140 on average; men earn £200. Other speeches, and not exclusively from the Opposition, have underlined the fact that women are still undervalued and underpaid.
  The hon. Member for Billericay argued that we should not denigrate people who accept a wage of £2 an hour. I would not denigrate anyone who was forced to accept £2 an hour for the only work they could obtain. I am very critical of, and would be delighted to be given the opportunity to denigrate to their faces, employers who offer that and have the audacity to call it a wage. Everyone in the Chamber knows of situations where £2 would be regarded as a less than adequate tip.
  Very low rates of pay often exist for jobs that are important but are viewed as unimportant by those who pay the wages. The Fawcett Society briefing shows that

  515
  care assistants often receive very little because their work is deemed unimportant by people who define the value of work almost exclusively in terms of the wages that it can command. That is central to why women are not equal in Britain and in every other country. Such work is deemed not to require any skills, training, energy, application or imagination.
  The hon. Member for Billericay will agree about, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) has mentioned, the skills that women develop in life simply by virtue of being women, from having responsibility for running houses, raising children, looking after elderly parents, and from a whole range of other matters to which women have to bring their life skills. If those skills were translated into a commercial enterprise, business, or industry and were given high-sounding titles such as management skills or crisis management, they would command a high salary.
  However, such job descriptions do not exist for those essential jobs. Think of the sort of work done by a care assistant in caring for people who are often elderly, frail and confused. It is outrageous that that quality of care should be deemed to be worth only £2 an hour.
  Mrs. Gorman: I guess that the great majority of care workers are employed by the state. I said that the state was one of the worst employers in respect of wages. I do not know what the figures are. Nobody makes people work for that sort of money. If they need it badly enough to take it, it is wrong for us to say that those jobs are not valid because they only get paid that amount.
  Ms Jackson: To start where the hon. Lady ended, I repeat my point. I do not say that those jobs are not valid; they are vital. My point is that it is a scandal and a disgrace that they are deemed by the people who define wage scales to be worth only £2 an hour. The hon. Lady is wrong to say that most care assistants work in the state sector. As she well knows in respect of care in the community, the Government have decided that 85 per cent. of all they hand to local authorities must be spent in the private sector.
  Most residential and nursing homes are outside urban areas. To pick up the hon. Lady's point about why people take such jobs, I know of a residential nursing home in a rural area. It provided the only employment opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds because they could get to and from it. There was no public transport, and they could not get to the nearest large town. They did not have such facilities. The home offered the only employment opportunities in their area.
  I am sorry to bore the House, but I repeat that it is a scandal and disgrace that the care of the elderly and frail at one end of life's time scale, and the very young at the other, should be deemed work of such little value that the people who do it are paid slave wages.
  I revert to my main theme. One especially interesting theme of this debate recurs whenever we have such debates, whether they are dubbed debates about women or, as tonight, equal opportunities for women, and when the state of women is the focus of attention for one day in the year. I hope that we manage to make these debates an annual event, and that the hon. Member for Billericay does not fail to participate in them. It is that from Conservative Members we hear that things are infinitely better for women, and that, although things may be moving slowly, they are moving inevitably forward.
  516
  I argue, as do my hon. Friends, that that is not the case. Every time we have such debates, what is most grievous about the Government's argument is that they imply that it is, and always has been, an accepted state—indeed, that there is something unusual and unwarranted in saying that it is grossly unfair—that women's place in our society and in every society throughout the world is still one of marked inequity.
  The hon. Member for Billericay said that capitalism was one of the motivating and advancing forces for women in the world. All I can say to that is that capitalism has done nothing to advance opportunities for women in, say, Mexico, where they may work growing flowers, and pesticides that would be banned in America, in this country and in the rest of Europe, are flooded over the fields, with all the concomitant health risks.
  Capitalism has done virtually nothing for people in countries where tea or coffee, for example, offer the basic economic opportunities. Industrialised nations can dictate a guaranteed price for the crop, and if the market falls, the producer carries the burden. Capitalism has done nothing for the developing nations of the world.
  However, there is one area in which women seem to be over-present—an area in which one would like to see them a little less heavily represented—in as much as it is women and their children who suffer most grievously from violence, both in domestic situations and in nation states, because of civil war or warring nation states. Most refugees and displaced people are women and children, and sometimes elderly men and women.
  The United Nations report on the world's children, which I believe was published towards the end of last year, said, for the first time in any UN publication, that 75 per cent. of the world's women live on or below the poverty line—not the decency threshold, but the poverty line. The statement is somewhat cloudy and guarded; none the less, the political message is there. That means that 75 per cent. of the world's women—and, of course, their children—live in physical conditions of the most abject and degrading poverty. They have no access to education, to primary health care or even to clean water.
  For the first time in any of its publications, to my knowledge, the United Nations said in the report that the world's failure to advance the cause of women could perhaps—I admit that I am paraphrasing here—be traced back to the fact that, in the legislative assemblies of the world, too few women are sitting on Benches such as these.
  It has been established that the women of the world do two thirds of the world's work, while earning less than one tenth of the world's income. We also own less than 1 per cent. of the world's property. We, as a gender, make the world go round, and we have far too little voice in the direction that our world should take.
  The only way in which that voice can justifiably be heard, and make a real difference, will be when those who come from half the population of the country—the female half—account for half the places on these green Benches. I hope that that day will dawn in this country. There must be more female representation in the legislative assemblies of the world. We are discussing a shift in power.
  That shift would bring about genuine equality for women. It would mean that they were not burdened by the idea that they had to have a child every nine months,

  517
  so that, with its ability to work, each child would represent the family's insurance policy for the future. We can remove such burdens from women and create real equality, which would benefit not only women and their children but their menfolk too, and the world as a whole, only if we ensure that the legislative assemblies of the world reflect a genuine female perspective.
  I do not believe that there is such a thing as a "women's issue", and I would not be interested in arguing for it if I did. But undoubtedly there is a female dimension in all of us. For far too long, the world has been governed and ruled by masculine perceptions, and has been presented as being entirely their preserve. There is a whole other area of human experience, imagination and perception that could be dubbed female, although it does not always and exclusively reside in women.
  It is time for that balance to begin to percolate through, so that the world can indeed become a better and more equal place, not only for women, but for men too.
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who has just made a fine contribution, in talking about the worldwide situation, although she was right to remind us of it. The Save the Children Fund and others have produced some useful practical statistics, such as the number of hours that it takes for a woman or a family to collect water, to demonstrate the imbalance between the extraordinary prosperity of countries such as ours and the poverty of the vast majority of the population of the world.
  I shall confine my remarks to this country, and I begin by asking: what sort of opportunity are we really talking about? Opportunity is too often defined in the narrow terms of finance and career opportunities, as if the goal of equal opportunities were to reproduce for women the conditions that many men are at last beginning to question, and to ask whether they are appropriate priorities.
  It would be sad if the achievement of greater equality of women were a one-way street. I do not want to see more women aping the least attractive characteristics of men. For example, there is evidence that young girls are increasingly forming gangs, adopting foul language and drinking to excess. Even in the House we have seen a woman Minister being subjected to abuse of a boorishness that apes the worst kind of male boorishness in this place.
  Mrs. Gillan: When was that?
  Mr. Rowe: The Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), was subjected to a number of exceedingly offensive remarks, which I would have thought that women seeking equal opportunity would rather have eschewed. We seem to be making rather a poor fist of adapting to our changing world.
  The world is indeed changing greatly. In 1900, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) pointed out, 154 children in every thousand died before the age of one. The typical woman could expect 10 years between the time that her last child left home and death. Now, only 6.4 children per thousand die as infants, and the
  518
  average woman will have two pregnancies or fewer and can expect to reach the age of 63 without suffering a limiting long-standing illness. She can expect many years of active life before dying at 80-plus. In those years, she may well pursue her own interests, with relatively little interaction with her children, who may live far away from her.
  However, those undoubted gains have led to a host of strains, with which we are still trying to cope. First, there is the rapid increase in household instability. There are some faint signs that the rate of household break-up may be beginning to slow down—I certainly hope so—but one in three, or an even greater proportion, of marriages still end in divorce. In those circumstances, any prudent girl must ensure that she will be able to support herself financially, even if she is one of those girls—they really exist—who would prefer to rely on her spouse.
  In a society in which, thanks to Conservative policies, one young person in three now enters higher education, we are confronted by a paradox: those who take such an opportunity may well not arrive in the labour market until they are at least 25. I am prepared to lay quite a good bet that that is true of the children of some hon. Members who are in the Chamber now. The creation of a pension sufficient to support them for the 30 years that could easily follow their early retirement at 50 is a subject for another debate, but it is an important question none the less.
  I want to draw attention to the problems of couples who cannot even set up a household until they are 25 or 26, who are unlikely to have their first child until they are about 30 and who are faced with child care obligations just when their employers expect the maximum return on investment in education and training. I am not at all sure that child care is the best solution to the problem, given that in many instances it is provided by a succession of carers who stay for less than a year. It is, however, very difficult for an ambitious couple to know how to secure their future in employment if they take too much time off work to look after their babies.
  The crux of the debate should be how we can ensure that parenting is effective without damaging our pursuit of equal opportunities for women. We are certainly not doing very well now: 750,000 children in the United Kingdom have no contact with their natural fathers. How can we possibly accept that? We press on blindly, pursuing a lopsided goal. We expect ever higher take-home pay, although for many people the home to which the pay is taken is falling apart.
  As Etzioni put it,
  "The new gender equalised world was supposed to be a combination of all that was sound and ennobling in the traditional roles of women and men. Women were to be free to work any place they wanted, and men would be free to show emotion, care and domestic commitment, not supposed to mean that children would be bereft of dedicated parenting."
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I secured a 90-minute Wednesday morning Adjournment debate on the problems of parental care and working time. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far, but does he accept that nearly every Government policy that he has supported for the past 16 years has led to exactly that pressure—the pressure to maximise take-home pay and working time, and to reduce the time in which parents can be with their children to a minimum, especially through the absence of adequate child care?
  Mr. Rowe: I am sorry that I did not take part in that debate. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman is over-crediting Governments with a capacity to affect human behaviour in that way. It seems to me that each generation, having experienced a higher standard of living in the parental home, sets itself targets that cannot be realised often. People drive themselves to seek higher incomes, larger houses and larger mortgages than is prudent. That is one reason why people find themselves in difficulty.
  I accept that men are not facing up to their share of domestic commitments. In 79 per cent. of households, the washing and ironing are always or usually done by the woman alone; in only 2 per cent. of homes do men take charge of those time-consuming tasks. In 41 per cent. of homes, shopping is done exclusively by the woman. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that women are reckoned to have two hours less spare time per day than men.
  There is not much point in simply seeking equality of opportunity if we are trying to drive men into the same bind as that suffered by women. Nor is there much point in women simply trying to ape the worst characteristics of male society. So far, I have dealt with the section of the population that is engaged in higher education, but what about the other end of the education ladder?
  Today, the chief executive of the Office of Standards in Education drew attention to the hopelessness of young men—especially young white men—who make nothing of their education, leave school without skills or qualifications and have neither hope nor expectation of employment. That is tragedy enough, but it gets much worse. Young men in such circumstances often have a pathetic but destructively chauvinistic view of the male role. Violence, aggression, drunkenness and promiscuity—or even predatory sexuality—attract them. The results are seen partly in foreign football grounds or seaside resorts—to our national shame—and partly, and increasingly, in drug dealing or burglary to gain the cash to fuel their hungers.
  In those circumstances, why should a young woman seek to draw such a man into a permanent relationship? He will spend her money and contribute little or nothing to household maintenance, and could easily knock her about. In a society that takes an extraordinarily relaxed view of promiscuity, it is easier than it once was for a woman to satisfy her sexual needs without requiring a long-term commitment. Few young women would choose such a solution, but many prefer it to the alternative. That is a challenge to all of us, and easy solutions do not exist.
  Mrs. Gorman: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the situation must be kept in perspective. We hear about the bad cases, but four out of five children are brought up in families that stay together, at least until they are 16, and the great majority of young people—even those without skills—manage to find work when they leave school. My hon. Friend is talking about a tiny minority.
  Mr. Rowe: I could not agree more, in that we are talking about a tiny minority of hooligans. I take issue with my hon. Friend, however. This is one of those instances in which the national average conceals a serious problem. In several parts of the country, only a few young men are capable of obtaining employment, and that has
  520
  bred a culture in which they do not even expect to find it. They do not try at school, and in many cases they are taught very badly. As a consequence, they are caught in a spiral that was demonstrated very well in a television programme that I watched two nights ago about drug dealing in areas such as St. Paul's in Bristol.
  Let me give my hon. Friend a parallel. In the 19th century, the pressure to construct drains in our municipalities came from two sources. There was the humanitarian desire for the poor to live in better conditions, and there was the perception among the fortunate that cholera killed the fortunate as quickly as the unfortunate.
  I fear that, if we do not find ways of breaking into the vicious spiral of downward aspirations, increasing crime and increasing alienation between men and women, the disease will spread. Already, many of my constituents who live in favourable circumstances are being burgled, threatened and harassed by young people whom, in a number of cases, the police recognise. Many of those young people are funding a drug habit which costs £23,000 a year. That is a lot of money to find for young people who have no prospect of employment.
  I have no solutions to offer, but I have one or two suggestions. We must take a serious look at work and education patterns. Work in the United Kingdom is increasingly driven by the computer, which never sleeps, and by the global market, which is instantly accessible across every time zone. The concept of normal working hours is out of date, but employers are still clinging to the traditional shape of the working day. As a result, more and more people are staying at work for increasingly longer periods because they are required to work not only the core hours but the additional hours that are foisted upon them by the demands of the global market.
  The result is an appalling burden on families, and many parents see far too little of their children. As Rob Parsons rightly put it:
  "I have never heard of anyone who, on their death bed, said: `I wish I had spent more time at the office'."
  Mr. MacShane: Does the hon. Gentleman support the European social affairs directive that limits the working week to 48 hours? If he says no, as I expect he will, does he agree that it is no use wishing the end while denying the means?
  Mr. Rowe: I should not like to see a directive on the working week. It is possible to get round such directives, particularly in an age when people can take their little portable computers home, where they have faxes and portable telephones. We know that half the time that is denied to children is spent at home; it is spent saying, "Don't disturb Daddy; he's busy." That is the key. I do not believe that a social directive will necessarily make any difference. I should very much like to see a concerted effort to discuss with employers and others whether the way in which working time is organised is sensible. If we can change their attitudes to the working week, we might find that we can achieve considerable advance without a directive.
  Mrs. Gorman: What does the hon. Gentleman think of imposing a 40-hour week on this place so that we could get home to see our loved ones a little more often? If imposing a 40-hour week is not right for hon. Members, why do Opposition Members think that they should impose it on everyone else? Some people like working 90 hours a week.
  Mr. Rowe: It is certainly true that some people like working 90 hours a week, but very many more people work 90 hours a week because their boss or their competitors work 90 hours a week. One can see that trend throughout society. There are partnerships in the City, for example, in which the partners will not take on sufficient staff because that would cut into their profits, and they expect the young people who work for them to work absurdly long hours. It would be quite salutary for those partners, one day, to ask themselves how much money they are paying out extra in tax and social security benefits to repair the damage that such working hours inflict on society.
  Employers should examine more boldly such ideas as job sharing. As I represent a constituency that has many commuters, I believe that many more employers in the City, and in London generally, should consider creating out-stations for their workers. In constituencies such as mine, people could travel three or four miles to work rather than commuting to London, at a huge cost in time and energy. They could do their work perfectly well electronically, and go into London once or twice a week instead of every day. That would not be the same as working from home; most people do not want to work from home. People want the companionship, stimulation and fun of going out and meeting other people at work, but they would give their eye teeth to be able to do their work nearer home. There is a whole culture in this country that says that everybody has to sit side by side before anything gets done.
  Similarly, we need seriously to examine school hours. Why do we cling to the current school hours, which chime in the worst possible way with working hours? Why do we not look at having two shifts in our schools, for example, with two groups of teachers and pupils? That might mean a long morning for some and a long afternoon for others, and parents could choose which of the two provisions suited them best.
  In some cases, such a practice would lead to a much more intensive use of school premises, which are often unoccupied for a large part of the day, and to much less danger from vandalism, arson and the other problems that afflict our schools. Although such hours would lead to a much larger bill for maintenance because the plant would be used much more often, they would allow for additional resources to enable the schools to have much better equipment and general provision. That idea is worth examining.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the pattern of the school year and the long summer holiday? As I understand it, that pattern originated with the need for the children to be released to help get in the harvest. We have moved on, on the whole, from the time when that was a pressing requirement. The traditional pattern, which everyone has to put up with, is extremely inconvenient for families, particularly for women.
  Mr. Rowe: That is a very good point, and it starkly raises the question of the periods that hon. Members work. As I understand it, the long summer break was partly occasioned by the desire of many hon. Members to go shooting grouse, which is a desirable occupation but one for which I do not have the time or money. The other
  522
  reason was that the river smelt so bad that we could not bear it in the summer months. The break, like many of the characteristics of this place, is long overdue for a thorough review. We should examine how we work here.
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know, if he does not already, that, with the Government's policy of choice and diversity in schools, we have schools that operate five-term years. On my visit to Brooke Weston city technology college in Corby, the headmaster boasted to me, "There is only one day that this school closes—Christmas day." Is not that the proof that we are bringing choice and diversity into the education system, in contrast to the policies of the Labour party—which have been described by many organisations as naive?
  Mr. Rowe: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend, because I had not heard of that project and a five-term school year. She would do well to make that more widely known, because It is the type of development that people would like to discuss.
  A debate on equal opportunities that concentrates chiefly on securing for women what men now have is missing the point. We need to ask what sort of society we want and how we can help men and women enhance their lives and their children's lives, emotionally as well as financially. I suspect that we need to change how we teach and what we teach so that, from a much earlier age, boys and girls learn more about one another, how to value one another and how to value the differences between one another—other than in relation to the extraordinary, giggle-behind-the-hand sexual differences. The other differences make such an enormous difference, and we should be much better at learning about them.
  The idea has persisted that, if a man is overwhelmed by some kind of emotional tragedy and cries, he is somehow too weak to be trusted. The same sort of nonsense is often thought about women for other reasons. That attitude is out of date. We must try to inculcate in our society a mutual respect for each other, which means that people will lose their fear that if they share equally in the burdens of life, they will somehow lose their sexual identity—they could actually enhance it.
  Because I care very much about this, I have taken on the chairmanship of a temporary organisation called Heirs to the Millennium, which is sponsored by the all-party subject group for children and by the all-party subject group for Christian fellowship. It cuts clean across all cultural groups. We intend to put 1,500 people into Coventry cathedral on 22 May to drive to the top of the political agenda the question that underpins the debate about equal opportunities for women: how do we look after the next generation; how do we set the next generation the kinds of role models, standards and opportunities that will make them satisfactory heirs to the next millennium?
  7.51 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made an interesting contribution to the debate, and I agree with much of what he said, particularly in relation to negative stereotypical attitudes and the roles that young men and women have in our country. However, these behavioural attitudes are not in a vacuum: they are from the culture of our young men and

  523
  women; they are conditioned by our economic and political values—which have been set by the Government over the past 17 years. Therefore, many of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred are at the door of the Government.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) intervened on the hon. Member for Mid-Kent and asked, "What about reducing the working week?" The hon. Gentleman was not in favour of that, but he had said earlier that people were working far too many hours and did not have time for their families. There were contradictions in his speech, but I will not pursue them further.
  I welcome this debate. When we have these debates, there are inevitably comments about the representation of women in the House. Since 1918, only 167 women have gained seats in the House—and if all those women were to sit in the Chamber today, they would fill only one quarter of it. That is a vivid illustration. In that context, the Labour party's efforts to increase the number of female Members of Parliament are laudable and should be praised.
  I believe that scores of issues could be discussed in relation to women. I presented two Bills to the House that got the issue of pensions and divorce up and running. I hope that the Government will agree to pension splitting when the Family Law Bill returns to the House. Other issues include women in prison—there are far too many—women as carers, women in the national health service, women in poverty and the glass ceiling. Less than 3 per cent. of chief executives are women and more than 50 per cent. of company boards do not have a female director on them.
  Family planning has been mentioned in passing, and it is an important issue which the Minister should address. Conservative Members like to refer to the stereotype of single mothers. The issue of too-early childbirth should be addressed—it often blights the prospects of the mother and her relationship, and more often than not limits the child's prospects as well. There should be an effective family planning programme for men and women, including education in schools. We could discuss a host of economic issues, including the prospects for women in their teens and 20s.
  The Policy Studies Institute recently released a report about part-time workers and stated that equal rights at work would add 0.5 per cent. to the total wage bill—that is less than the perks that company directors pay themselves. We should put the argument for equal rights at work. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has written the following to me:
  "CAB clients and Trade Union members report a levelling down rather than a levelling up of terms and conditions. Whether in full-time, part-time, or flexible work many Londoners are struggling to survive: on poverty wages; working excessively long hours; without proper breaks or holidays; and afraid to challenge their employer for fear of dismissal and the suspension of welfare benefits.
  Problems at work inevitably spill over into other areas of life and CABx see at first hand the ways in which diminishing job security contributes to homelessness, debt, dependence on supplementary benefits (such as family credit) and strains upon the family and other relationships."
  We should have a programme for equal rights at work and a minimum wage, as proposed by the Labour party, which would benefit millions of women.
  In 1977, 1,015 rapes were reported; in 1987, that number increased to 2,471; and by 1994, the number had shot up to 5,082. However, the conviction rate for
  524
  rape fell from 32 per cent. of the complaints in 1977, to 18 per cent. in 1987 and to only 10 per cent. in 1994. That is a shocking figure, and the issue must be addressed. It is said that 83 per cent. of rapes are carried out by a man known to the woman concerned, and approximately half of all rapes are carried out by husbands or by partners. When rape is by a partner, it is often a repeated experience for the woman.
  The Government should address that issue. There should be a reform of the Crown Prosecution Service and it should be reactivated to deal with rape, and higher priority should be given to increasing the level of rape convictions. The Government must take that issue more seriously—the 10 per cent. figure is appalling. The Government should also take action in relation to rape within marriage, and it should be on the statute book as a crime. I hope that the Minister considers including it in the Family Law Bill when it comes before the House.
  The 1982 British crime survey suggested that there was a minimum of half a million domestic violence incidents per year, 87 per cent. of which are against women. In 1991, 120 women were killed by their partners, representing 41 per cent. of all women who were murdered. Domestic violence accounts for one quarter of all reported violent assault, yet research suggests that only 2 per cent. of violent attacks on women are reported to the police. In fact, the Women's Aid Federation estimates that a woman will be assaulted 35 times before she makes a complaint to the police about domestic violence. The problem is extensive, yet the services provided to tackle it are seriously overstretched.
  Women's Aid refuges have increased in number but are severely overstretched. In 1992–93, an estimated 45,000 women and children fled to the safety of a refuge house, and more than 100,000 used the services of a local refuge group. In 1975, the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended that there be at least one family refuge place per 10,000 of the population. Research by Women's Aid suggests that only a third of that number are available.
  Women's Aid reported that, in Glasgow, in 1991–92, 221 women were admitted to its refuge and 1,047 turned away. That was only one area, so very many women and their children continue to be turned away. One in five refuge groups have no full-time staff and the crisis phonelines are sparse and inadequate—far fewer than in the United States, Canada and Australia.
  Mrs. Gillan: As the hon. Gentleman is making such a thoughtful speech, I am sad that he is the only Back Bencher on the Labour Benches during this part of the debate. I wonder whether he is aware that rape in marriage is considered a crime in this country following the House of Lords decision in the early part of this decade. Is he aware that, in Germany, rape in marriage is not a criminal offence?
  Mr. Cohen: I appreciate that point. Rape in marriage should be a criminal offence in every country, including Germany. Yes, I am aware of the decision; the Law Lords made it after I presented a ten-minute Bill. Nevertheless, there should be such a provision on the statute book. I remind the Government that they accept that it should be on the statute book, provided that there is parliamentary time. The Family Law Bill will give the opportunity for that to happen.

  525
  The United Nations "Global Platform for Action" talks about the need for Governments to
  "organise, support and fund community-based educational training campaigns to raise awareness about violence against women as a violation of their human rights".
  Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman knows far more about the subject than I do and I am diffident about asking him, but surely we need more than refuges or educational programmes to enable people to understand that there is a lot of violence. Surely we need to break into the cycle of violence, because in marriage many violent men have no way of handling the pressures that are generated between husband and wife, and revert to primitive responses. I cannot help feeling that there must be more scope than is sometimes allowed for breaking into that cycle.
  Mr. Cohen: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, with which I agree. People who are violent in marriage have often witnessed violence in their parents' marriage and perpetuate it. That cycle should be broken, and to help do so the Government should formulate an education programme to be adopted in schools and throughout society.
  I mentioned what the UN "Global Platform for Action" says about Governments organising, supporting and funding a campaign promoting awareness of violence against women. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is co-chairman of the Women's National Commission. Many fine organisations have contributed to the view expressed by the Women's National Commission in its response to the UN global platform. It says, in relation to that recommendation, that the key action is for the Government to
  "Organise, support and fund a range of information, education and training campaigns and programmes to raise awareness about violence against women as an unacceptable violation of human rights; and about patterns of media presentation which promote stereotypes and may generate violence."
  It also speaks about the need to
  "Support, promote and fund positive initiatives in education and training in non-violence, conflict resolution, assertiveness, self-help; and the stimulation of public debate on the causes, effects and elimination of violence against women."
  That is a good recommendation by the WNC, and I ask the Government to implement it and put their weight behind it.
  The WNC talks about organising, supporting and funding those initiatives which have been lacking from the Government until now. I hope that the Government will now put them into action.
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is generous to give way twice. Is he aware that, following the meeting in Béjing, I initiated an implementation plan for the platform for action, and that I wished to consult all non-governmental organisations, including the WNC? I wanted to hear their interpretation of the document and what they believed Government and other organisations should do in response to it.
  It has been a successful consultation; indeed, the organisations asked for the consultation period to be extended. I look forward to studying the recommendations
  526
  and advice of those organisations, which did much work before the conference and are making a contribution after it. It is a continuing process.
  Mr. Cohen: I appreciate the Minister's comments, but we are getting close to the time when consultation must come to an end and action must start. The Government need to act promptly in response to the WNC's recommendations.
  The UN global platform talks about providing
  "well-funded shelters and relief support for girls and women subjected to violence; medical, psychological and other counselling services and free or low-cost legal aid, as well as appropriate assistance to find means of subsistence".
  The WNC says that that must be implemented and that the Government need to develop
  "healing and counselling programmes to support girls, young women, refugees, disabled and others who are especially vulnerable to abuse in homes, institutions and workplaces"
  and
  "Require all courts to provide accommodation such that the victim(s) neither wait nor attend trial in full view of the aggressor, in particular in cases where children are involved."
  Obviously, the Government must take action. I return to the shortage of refuge places, which the Government are not tackling. When will they tackle it? I tabled early-day motion 323 after an especially horrific killing of a woman and her children by a violent husband, I believe in Bristol.
  My motion called for
  "a national network of battered women's refuges",
  which has been delayed too long. We need to make up the remaining two thirds of the places recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee, and the Government must co-ordinate the effort and help to fund it. It is crucial that there is a clear, unambiguous Home Office commitment to a co-ordinated national strategy to respond to domestic violence and establish and support adequate numbers of refuges to cope.
  I have a final point to make about domestic violence, which involves immigrant women. Under British immigration law, the one-year rule means that, for someone to be entitled to come and stay in this country on the basis of marriage, that person has to have been married for one year. If, within that year, the person is subjected to violence and leaves the relationship, he or she is effectively punished by being deported from the country, which is unfair. There is a strong case for the Government to abolish that one-year rule, so that women who are subjected to violence by their partner are not thrown out of the country.
  It is interesting that, when the Minister intervened in my speech for the second time, she mentioned consulting, as my final comments involve a briefing from the Fawcett Society, which states:
  "A year and a half after Vienna"—
  which was when the Government signed up to the United Nations platform for action—
  "the Government is still `consulting'. The Cabinet has offered no focus or vision … The token Ministerial Committees on Women's Issues, and on Domestic Violence are invisible, inaudible and unaccountable. Public consultation has been too little and too late and using the too narrow channel of the Women's National Commission. This is in sharp contrast to the actions of advanced modern nations such as Canada and Australia who have advertised the Platform on public TV."

  527
  They are not my comments but those of the Fawcett Society, which has a place on the Women's National Commission.
  There are important issues involving equal opportunities for women on which the Government need to take urgent action—none more so than the violence that too many women in this country face in their everyday lives. The Government should take on board those comments and act.
  8.11 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) said that we have many subjects to discuss this evening, I believe that there is a danger of the debate becoming repetitive. I hope to be brief, but I shall start by repeating the comments of two of my hon. Friends—my hon. Friends the Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman)—who said that the debate was patronising. I agree, and I hope that in future we shall not have such a debate.
  Much to my surprise, I agreed with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), who, unfortunately, is no longer present and did not have the courtesy to stay to hear the concluding comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). If we are to have such a debate—I am not entirely certain that we need one—it should be on a balanced equal opportunities policy.
  I have had 20 to 30 years of active involvement in the women's movement, beginning with Mary Stott's women's page in The Guardian. I was also involved in lobbying for the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and in persuading Inland Revenue officials of the need to have independent taxation for married women. I also played a small part in persuading the present Lord Lawson of Blaby at the party conference of the need for that policy.
  Our legislative platform covers the requirements of equality for women. Both before that legislative platform and subsequently, we introduced the support systems that allow women to achieve their ambitions. The long list mentioned in my hon. Friend the Minister's excellent speech showed the variety of support systems that are put in place, not just by the state but by the voluntary and business sectors.
  Based on my years of experience in the women's movement, I believe that we now need seriously to consider an infinitely more threatening aspect of the subject which has strong parallels with the problems that women used to face in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That threatening aspect involves the lack of opportunity, lack of vision, demotivation and lack of confidence among the dispossessed young white male population, particularly in schools.
  In the late 1960s, we women were able to tackle our problems and create our own solutions; it was a long, hard fight and the House contains many veterans of the battle. There are many veterans outside the House—as many hon. Members have said, they range from the Women's Institute in the 1930s to the Fawcett Society. Many such organisations have come and gone because their job has been completed.
  Now, we must ensure that young boys in school tackle the problems and start creating solutions. If they do not do that, we, as a society, will be left with the insoluble
  528
  problem that was so graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent. Like him, I have no prescriptions on how we can solve the problem. I was pleased that the chief inspector of schools publicly identified the problems that some of us have been noticing for some time. If we are to have such a debate next year, I would prefer it to be on that subject. We must focus firmly on the problems of those young men.
  I suspect that those young men are still brought up in an atmosphere in which they believe that the only real jobs are physical, heavy jobs. Training is often needed for such jobs in the steel and shipbuilding industries and in coal mining. It was often taken for granted that, when boys left school, they would go into such jobs. Now, if they are lucky, they might get a job labouring for a few months, but they are then chucked back on to the unemployment scrap heap precisely because they have no vision of where they want to go and no idea of how to get there.
  Schools can help to a certain extent. We are also finding that parents opt out; they often have no vision of what the boys can do. Outside agencies—all the organs of the state—which the boys do not regard as enemies, must intervene. Those who cannot help include social workers, teachers, the police and those involved in social security and any other social services. They are often regarded as the enemy—an authority to be decried, avoided and probably mocked. We must tackle that problem and help those boys to develop the support structures they need, so that society does not have to deal with generations of dispossessed young, rogue males.
  I hope that I have reinforced the message of some of my hon. Friends that it would be a pleasure if next year we did not have to debate equal opportunities for women. I look forward to hearing the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary.
  8.17 pm
  Sir Anthony Grant: I tiptoe gingerly into this debate, but I am fortified by following my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), who made a wise and sensible speech—as have nearly all the charming lady Members who have spoken. I was inspired to participate by the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and, to some extent, by the speech by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), whom I always seem to follow in these debates. I want to talk about violence, particularly the serious problem of juvenile crime. No debate on equal opportunities can take place without some consideration of the children.
  One of my constituents is the wife of a don and was a founder member of an organisation called WATCH—What About The Children? It has done a great deal of work and put a lot of thought into the subject. Although my constituent, Mrs. Switzer, is no longer on the executive committee of WATCH, she keeps me in touch with the remarkable amount of research that is being conducted in that sphere.
  There is no doubt about it: we must all be desperately concerned about the sad and inexorable rise in juvenile crime—some of it among the very young. It was highlighted particularly by that ghastly Bulger case a couple of years ago. There is overwhelming evidence that the seedbed of juvenile crime is broken homes and an unhappy family relationship, often involving violence, as the hon. Member for Leyton said.

  529
  It is clear that the origins of crime are in early childhood experience. We have to apply our minds to that because the prevention of juvenile crime, disorder and misbehaviour is far more important—and cheaper—than its cure. Instead of spending vast sums on prisons, reforms schools, social workers, probation and goodness knows what, it is better to tackle the problem at the root. All the research that I have been given shows that the problem starts much earlier than one would think—in childhood.
  I draw the attention of the House to the remarkable work by various learned professors, including David Smith and Michael Rutter. Let me quote a few items from the work of Dr. Elliott Barker, the president of the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. He writes:
  "The community—that is, all of us—suffers the ill effects of absentee parenting … The closer the mother's supervision of the child, the more intimate the child's communication with the father, and the greater the affection between child and parents, the less the delinquency."
  I am wholly and absolutely in favour of equal opportunities. Women often do a much better job than men, except in rugby, but in virtually everything else they do an extremely good job. I am therefore entirely in favour of equal opportunity, but women are unique in that they provide the basis, the home and right upbringing for tiny children.
  Mr. Merchant: I hesitate to intrude on my hon. Friend, but he mentioned rugby and I would like to draw his attention to the fact that, in 1995, Beverly Davis established that she could stand for election to the national executive committee of the Rugby Football Union. That is proudly reported in the document from the Equal Opportunities Commission.
  Sir Anthony Grant: In that case, I bow entirely to my hon. Friend, although I hope that I do not live to see the day when the English ladies' 15 beats the English or Scottish men's 15.
  Dr. Elliott Barker continued:
  "We made an extraordinary sobering discovery. An unattached child, even at the age of three and four, cannot easily attach himself, even when he is provided with the most favourable conditions for the formation of a human bonds. The most expert clinical workers and foster parents can testify that to win such a child, to make him care, to become important to him, to be needed by him, and finally to be loved by him is the work of months and years. Yet all of this, including the achievement of a binding love for a partner, normally takes place at home, without psychiatric consultation, in ordinary homes, with ordinary babies during the first year of life."
  Those are the views of an eminent psychiatrist who has devoted his life to studying that problem.
  My other quotation is from my constituency of Cambridge, and comes from a most distinguished person—Professor David Farrington, who is professor of psychological criminology at Cambridge and whose work is funded by the Home Office. He concludes his paper, "The Influence of the Family on Delinquent Development, 1994"
  as follows:
  "It would be in everyone's interests for some far-sighted politician or civil servant to lay the foundations now in the hope of achieving a decrease in this wide range of associated pathological problems in
  530
  the next century. Unfortunately, on recent experience, it may need another 100 cases at least as horrific as James Bulger before anything will be done."
  Something can be done. The new ministerial body on juvenile crime, which met in January, is carrying out some useful work. I hope that it will take on board the findings of recent research that problems of crime, disorder and unhappiness start far earlier than anyone had imagined. It is no good getting children into school and assuming that teachers can do the job. They cannot. It has to happen at home, primarily with the mother. She may be able to manage a job and do other work, but caring for children should come first.
  I have never quite understood why, in recent years, caring for children has become rather infra dig and people look down their noses at some poor person who looks after children and say, "She is just a childminder, a nanny or a woman at home." They feel that it is much grander and more superior to work in an office or a factory.
  We need a change of culture. We should point out that caring for children is a most exacting, professional and expert job. Therefore, as my constituent suggested, we should teach parenthood in schools. It is just as important as fiddling around with computers. It is absolutely crucial. With those few thoughts, I shall sit down. I am sure that my hon. Friends the charming Ministers on the Front Bench will take them all on board and convey them to the rest of the Government.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Piers Merchant: I am always genuinely surprised when I encounter prejudice against women, as I find it hard to understand. Having considered the matter in more detail, I have reached the conclusion that the issue of equality of opportunity for women depends to a large extent on the attitude of individuals. Although there should be a correct legal framework, the problems will be solved only when some people change their attitudes. That can be achieved in two ways—first, by reasonable and practical argument rather than ideology as that will convince people far more easily, and secondly, by example.
  Many hon. Members have rightly referred to the gender imbalance in House. I would be delighted to see that righted. In my view, the Chamber would change for the better as a result. However, I part company from the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), who implied that about 50 per cent. of hon. Members should be women in order properly to represent women in the country. That is a slur on hon. Members who are in the Chamber today.
  I do not believe that, because I am a man, I am any less able to represent my female constituents, any more than hon. Ladies are at a disadvantage in representing male constituents. Although the House would be more reflective of society in general if there were a better balance between the sexes, the hon. Lady's arguments were not valid in respect of the task of each Member in representing his or her constituents.
  I also disagreed with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) who retreated into psycho-babble about feminine issues. She almost invalidated her argument when she said that there were no such things as female issues, but that there was a female perspective. She went on to say that it did not necessarily require a woman to understand the female perspective, and at that point I felt that she had lost sight of her argument.

  531
  The discussion of quotas can be dangerous, and no one has suggested that there should be a quota of women in the Chamber. That would be very weak argument. That argument is advanced as a cure for the problem in other parts of society. However, I believe that it would be demeaning to women and would not solve the underlying problems: we must achieve a natural balance in such things.
  Why is not the percentage of women in the population reflected in the number of female Members of Parliament? It is not because of any legal restrictions—they have not existed for years—or because of a reluctance on the part of voters to elect women. Except in a few isolated cases, all the psephological evidence is that the electorate does not discriminate between the sexes. The problem clearly lies with selection committees, and it affects all parties. It is not particularly significant that the Labour party is now selecting more female candidates, as that is only a recent decision.
  It is true that some selection committees are prejudiced. The Labour party must be introducing a quota system in order to overcome a perceived prejudice—I cannot think of any other logical reason for that practice. However, the central problem—I speak from experience in the Conservative party—is a lack of potential female candidates. That has nothing to do with the present popularity of the Conservative party: the trend has been apparent for many years. We must address that essential problem—how do we encourage more women to come forward and play a role in politics?
  The same problem exists in other walks of life. One solution to that problem is to lead by example. Female trendsetters must step forward and show what can be done. They must prove that the perceived barriers can be broken down or that, in some cases, they do not exist at all. We need role models whom other women can follow.
  I am not prejudiced against women participating in politics or fulfilling any other role, perhaps because I grew up during a time when women were moving into all areas of society. I studied law at university, when significant numbers of women were entering higher education. At that time, about one third of law students were women—shortly after, the figure increased to 50 per cent. and more. As a young student, I witnessed some of the prejudice that existed among older male staff members. I measured that prejudice against my experience of seeing women students performing as well as their male colleagues—there was no significant difference in ability—which proved to be a shining example of how baseless that prejudice was.
  Later, I became a journalist, at a time when women were beginning to enter that profession. There were few women on my training course, but two or three years later 50 per cent. of new trainees were female. I again saw prejudice among older established journalists and staff members which was clearly baseless. Perhaps if I had not seen young female journalists performing to a very high standard, I might have shared that prejudice, but clearly it had no basis in reality.
  We had a female Prime Minister when I first entered the House in 1983. She was clearly able to perform that arduous task far better than most of the potential male candidates for the role. When I returned to the House in 1992, Madam Speaker demonstrated that the Speaker's job could be performed effectively by a woman. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will not mind my saying that I would not mind—perhaps I would not even
  532
  notice—if you were a woman, as I am now used to the idea of men and women occupying the Chair. However, there was a time when many people would have been aghast at that prospect and would have said that a woman could not possibly do the job. That is a vital reason why it is important to set an example: we can break down prejudice by showing what can be done.
  A few weeks ago, I visited the Royal Air Force personnel and training command. I am trying to learn a little about the services, as I am not particularly knowledgeable in that area. I was delighted to hear that there are two fast jet women pilots. It was interesting to hear the RAF top brass—whom one might expect to adopt a very traditional or prejudiced attitude towards women—full of pride and praise for the women who are increasingly playing an important role in all areas of the armed services. They are setting an example that I am sure many women will follow in future.
  A second solution to the problem of prejudice is reasonable and practical argument. One can advance two principal arguments in that regard. The first is a modern argument concerning meritocracy. We can have a proper, functioning meritocracy only if everyone in society has an equal opportunity to strive for excellence. I support the idea of a meritocracy and that sort of society requires equality of opportunity if it is to function properly.
  The second, more traditional argument that can blend with the first is the old-fashioned view—which I hope is still widely held—that common courtesy requires people to be thoughtful and polite to others, whoever they are and whatever their gender and personal characteristics. That should not be a superficial courtesy: we should respect the intrinsic value of human beings and treat all people equally. Blended together, I think that those two approaches are powerful arguments against all forms of prejudice.
  One can also view the issue in a moral and pragmatic way. The individual develops best if he or she is allowed to fulfil his or her potential; therefore, society should encourage people to do that. There should be no artificial barriers to prevent it. In conjunction with that is the pragmatic argument that the whole of society benefits if all available talent is harnessed and given a full and a free rein. All people—whatever their origins or gender—should have the opportunity to develop their full potential, because they, and the whole of society, will benefit as a result.
  I have concentrated on the argument for setting an example and the reasons why we must convince people that attitudes that foster prejudice are dangerous and undermine a successful society. However, I must refer also to the Government's important role in leading by example and by establishing and maintaining a framework in which we can all operate effectively. I emphasise the importance of organisations such as the Equal Opportunities Commission, which I believe does some very good work. I do not agree with everything it says or does, but I believe that it fulfils an important function as a body that exists to encourage equality of opportunity. Equally important are statutory mechanisms such as the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which enjoyed all-party support.
  Quotas and negative discrimination ultimately undermine equality, because they demean women, are patronising and give people who resist equality the opportunity to argue, "Those women have advanced only because they were given a step up." Quotas are also a

  533
  form of discrimination, so they contradict the purpose of equality of opportunity, which should be based on eliminating discrimination.
  The danger that emerges when the topic is addressed, particularly if too enthusiastically by some, is the pressure that some women feel to perform in the professions and other careers while meeting the demands of rearing children. If women choose and want to be full-time mothers or homemakers, as many do, they should not be pressured to give up those roles. In giving women opportunities, we ought to be giving them choice—rather than direct them in one particular direction. I have known women who were under intolerable pressure because it happened to be trendy to establish themselves in a full-time, lasting career when they were not happy in that sort of life. If women do choose it, that is fine—I am all in favour of that choice being available and encouraged.
  The emphasis in equality should be on the word "opportunity", which implies choice. Equality should not be about replacing an old-fashioned stereotype with a brave new stereotype. That would be almost as dangerous, if not more dangerous.
  8.42 pm
  Ms Ann Coffey: This is the first time that I have spoken from the Dispatch Box, and it is a handy place to put one's notes. I am conscious that I am addressing a Chamber in which few women have stood to speak, in a Parliament in which women are woefully under-represented. That means that my presence in this Chamber, and that of other women Members of Parliament in all parts of the House, is a special privilege—but it also reflects the challenge facing us and the difficulties still to be overcome in increasing the representation of women in Parliament. I shall return to that subject.
  I am particularly pleased that my first opportunity to speak from the Dispatch Box is in a debate on equal opportunities during International Women's Week, which gives the House and other Parliaments throughout the world a formal opportunity to examine women's progress towards equality, celebrate women's achievements and set the agenda for our objectives. When the point is reached when every piece of legislation pays particular attention to the structural problems that confront women, quicker progress will be made with achieving equality.
  We believe that a Cabinet Minister for women is crucial to that achievement. Responsibility for women's issues should not be tagged on to a long list of duties for an Under-Secretary of State—which reinforces the view that equality is a marginal issue instead of fundamentally central to our social structure.
  International Women's Day stems from a demonstration on 8 March 1857 by women in the United States of America against their low wages and appalling working conditions. European women first celebrated International Women's Day in 1911, as an opportunity to demand the right to vote and hold public office. We have achieved those aims, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) said, poor wages, poor working conditions and poverty are still part of women's lives in 1996.
  In contrast to the views of Conservative Members, who feel that this debate is a wasted opportunity, I welcome it. I hope that such debates will continue, because we
  534
  discovered that every past debate produced an announcement of new initiatives by the Minister. If there is no debate, there will be no more announcements.
  The Minister mentioned two positive approach programmes—Opportunity 2000 and Fair Play for Women. We have persuaded the Government to accept the word "positive" in relation to women. They also use the word "action" in relation to programmes—but we cannot get the Government to use the two words together. Opportunity 2000's positive approach to an action programme goes too far for the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, because in Defence questions, the hon. Gentleman referred to it as "politically correct nonsense". That shows the difficulties that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment faces in dealing with her colleagues. I do not envy her task of raising the consciousness of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces.
  I welcomed Opportunity 2000 and helped in my constituency when it was launched in 1991. In organisations that are Opportunity 2000 members, 8 per cent. of directors and senior managers are women, compared with 3 per cent. in non-member companies, which demonstrates the value of the positive action that is much decried by the Government when faced with European Union legislation. In last year's debate, the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster welcomed the fact that 71 per cent. of Opportunity 2000 employers offered maternity arrangements above the statutory minimum and 67 per cent. offered maternity leave. He seemed to feel that that was a good thing. It is curious that the Government will not give statutory paternity rights. Opportunity 2000 members do not view such a social contract as detrimental to their businesses or employees.
  I welcome also the Fair Play for Women initiative, launched in 1994. Is the Minister aware that it is difficult to obtain a copy of the "Fair Play for Women Newsletter"? I telephoned several businesses and organisations in my constituency, but they were unable to supply one—a pity, as it is rather good. I looked for a reference to funding and found these words:
  "The process of working bottom up and developing activities through consultation has ensured that funds have been identified and secured en route."
  I believe that that means that there is no funding—a shame, because such a project deserves underpinning in the form of stable resources. Perhaps we have discovered the difference between a positive approach and positive action—the former requires no money.
  Women's representation at leadership level is crucial. It is a way of breaking institutionalised attitudes and structural problems that are barriers to achievement. If poor representation continues at that level, attitudes that contribute to the situation will continue. If it is believed that women lack leadership skills, are not tough enough and are not serious about careers, and their management style is not as acceptable as that of men, they will not be appointed. But if women are not appointed, the attitude that they are unsuitable will continue to be reinforced. The organisational difficulties and inflexible working arrangements will continue to discourage women, to the detriment not only of women, but of men and the organisations themselves.
  The only way to create change is to challenge attitudes strongly and find mechanisms to appoint more women. Before Conservative Members start getting hot under their

  535
  collars, I do not mean appointing women for the sake of it: I mean appointing women on merit. The problem is that prevailing attitudes mean that the merit of women is not as easily seen as the merit of men.
  The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in his speech last year, referred to the programme of action for women in the civil service. Notice the absence of the word "positive". In attempts to increase the proportion of women at a senior level, part-time working and the possibility of part-time working have obviously had an important effect, but changing attitudes have also been important. It is not possible that, 10 years ago, women had sufficient merit to fill only 29 per cent. of senior positions, but now have sufficient merit to fill 40 per cent., 10 years later. Attitudes to women have clearly changed, their merits are more easily seen and recognised, and women have become more visible.
  Lack of recognition of women's merits is built very deeply into our structures and attitudes to women's contributions at home and at work. Women are the primary carers. We take responsibility for bringing up children as well as for caring for dependent relatives. Some 48 per cent. of women with children under four are at home. They are unfortunately referred to in a Department for Education and Employment report as "economically inactive". That is a curious description, because I remember my years as a parent as one of the most physically arduous times of my life.
  In their role as parents, women's—and, indeed, men's—contributions to the health of future generations, and to the general level of welfare and community care, are unquantifiable. Nothing is as fundamentally important as loving care for children, but support for the family is important for women. Women are very committed to their families, often to their cost. One of the saddest aspects of domestic violence is that women often stay in totally unacceptable situations, in which they are beaten and abused, for the sake of their children. Women's commitment to their family is tremendous.
  Some 35 per cent. of women gave as their reason for working part time—in a report issued by the Department for Education and Employment—the fact that they wanted to spend more time with their family, and 35 per cent. cited domestic commitments such as household tasks. Women still take major responsibility for making the evening meal and doing the household cleaning, washing and ironing. We should remember that part-time work outside the home is on top of a full-time job inside the home.
  An increasing proportion of women are working outside the home in part-time occupations, and 89 per cent. of those women work in services, 50 per cent. in three main groups—clerical and secretarial; sales; and personal services, including catering, nursing and hairdressing. Ethnic minority women are heavily concentrated in cleaning, hotel and catering work. Jobs that women do are undervalued and poorly paid, because they are women's jobs and seen as women's jobs. That reflects the attitude towards women in our society. It contributes to a depressing cycle of disadvantage and discrimination. Those attitudes do not help anybody and they do not help women, their families or men.
  Intolerable stress, financial and physical, on families leads to breakdown. Families need support to remain healthy and to survive, and I include in that many different kinds of family organisations. Poor working
  536
  conditions and wages outside the home are a major cause of stress for both men and women, but especially for women in poorly paid work.
  Affordable child care is an important support for families, and quality child care is crucial. For the women who need child care, other women provide it. For the women who need child care, it needs to be affordable. For the women who provide it, they are also entitled to decent levels of income, to allow them to take advantage of training courses, to improve the quality of child care. Unless we have a proper child care strategy, the women who look after children will be as disadvantaged as the women who need child minders.
  Time after time, the real difficulties that women face are overlooked in legislation. That brings me back to the subject of Parliament. We in Parliament cannot make credible statements about the importance that we attach to progress towards equality for women while the representation of women here is so low. Parliament is supposed to be representative of people in their political affiliations, but also in their occupations and experiences. Sadly, this Parliament is not. A Parliament that is under-representative is a diminished Parliament, which ultimately will be out of touch.
  Currently, there are 63 women Members of Parliament and 38 of them are Labour. We expect, after the next election, that our representation will almost treble. We have done our bit. Whatever comments the Government care to make about that process, as the other major political party, they have not done their bit. At the moment, the Conservatives have 17 women Members of Parliament, but it would seem that only a few women candidates have been chosen in safe seats. I do not understand their problem. It must be difficult to find a safe seat, but as they claim to select on merit, the only conclusion that women out there can draw is that Conservative women have no merit. If they were selected on merit, surely there would be more women Conservative Members of Parliament. If the Conservatives spent less time criticising us and more time on action to increase their female membership of the House, we might see some progress towards proper representation.
  The Conservatives should be in no doubt about the message that women will take from the Conservative party, now and after the next election. There will be wall-to-wall men on the Opposition Benches—that is where the Conservatives will have to sit—and on the Government Benches, where we shall be sitting, there will be 80 or 90 Labour women Members of Parliament. That will change the face of Parliament dramatically, and it will be because we have done it. We shall keep our word in government, with a Minister for women who will, through the legislative process of this House and positive action, start to deal with the structural changes that need to be effected to make the lives of women better, today and in the future.
  8.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): It is a great pleasure to welcome the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) to the Dispatch Box and to congratulate her on her first performance there. I could not agree with all she said, but she presented it articulately. As a gesture of good will, I can, however, offer to put her on the mailing list for the "Fair Play"

  537
  newsletter, which is compiled and funded by the Government. We shall be delighted to put all the hon. Lady's friends on the list as well.
  I am pleased to be able to take part in another debate to mark International Women's Day. The debate has been wide-ranging, with numerous speakers testifying to the importance of the subject. It was extremely encouraging to note the gravitas that the Labour party attaches to the debate, in the form of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who attended the opening speeches. One thing that women are good at is reading body language. I watched the right hon. Gentleman carefully, and although he said nothing, except from a sedentary position, his body language said it all.
  As Government co-chairman of the Women's National Commission, I have been impressed by the diversity of the women who make up the commission, by the high quality of their work and by the strength of their commitment to our goal of improving the status of women in this country. When the WNC makes recommendations to the Government, it does so with the support of all its member organisations, which, although they all represent women, are fairly diverse.
  People are often surprised that women from such a wide variety of backgrounds can reach agreement on what often appear to be controversial issues, but when there are problems and disputes, it is quite common to find that a group of women sitting down to try to sort them out can resolve them much more quickly. I see hon. Members nodding in agreement with that.
  In last Sunday's newspapers, journalists devoted several column inches to speculating about what would happen if women ran the country. I have had some minor experience of that. When I was younger, I used to take part in amateur dramatics, and we put on a play called "No Time for Fig Leaves". I do not suppose that it is a play in which the hon. Member for Stockport has ever been invited to take part. Our group found it quite amusing; the whole country was run by women, but it all ended in tears, so perhaps it was not a good example to follow.
  As Government co-chairman of the WNC, my task is to convey the commission's views to Government, which I do. I shall continue to urge my colleagues in Government to give the commission the attention that it deserves: it is a worthwhile body.
  On this international occasion, I must mention the UN's fourth world conference on women, where I was one of the three Ministers heading the UK delegation. I feel that the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) did a grave disservice earlier today to my right hon. Friend Baroness Chalker. Her reputation around the world has not, to my knowledge, been questioned before. She works very hard, and she is not a person to make commitments that she does not intend to honour. It was rather disgraceful of the hon. Lady to cast such aspersions, when it is clear that the platform for action is being implemented.
  The hon. Member for Dulwich should know from her association with the Women's National Commission of the plan that was set out even before the Peking conference. When we returned to the United Kingdom, we already had in place a way of collating feedback about the conference from voluntary organisations, the Equal Opportunities Commission and others, so that my right
  538
  hon. Friend was provided with a structure plan on which to base proposals as to how the Government would implement the platform for action.
  We have kept to the schedule. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment is consulting the relevant bodies to discuss with them how to put it into practice. Baroness Chalker's commitment has therefore been honoured, and will continue to be honoured.
  Ms Jowell: What I said was that Baroness Chalker's commitment would be judged by her actions, not by what she said in Beijing. Since the delegation returned, the Government have taken a number of decisions and have introduced a number of policies that are highly damaging to women. They are at complete variance with the commitments to which they signed up in Peking.
  Mrs. Browning: I rebut that assertion. The hon. Lady clearly expressed the view that my right hon. Friend says one thing when abroad and does quite another at home. She misrepresents my right hon. Friend. Time will tell. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment will be implementing the platform for action, and will work closely with women's organisations to see how it can be put into practice.
  Ms Jowell: We shall see.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady speaks as though nothing is happening. I do not know whether she has read the final document from Peking, but she will almost certainly know the timetable for action, and the fact that consultation is taking place. I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured that my right hon. and noble Friend is honouring that commitment to the letter.
  The Beijing conference has been mentioned by various hon. Members. I was inspired by the energy, determination and tenacity of the UK women's non-governmental organisations, who worked hard not only in Beijing but in Huairou, where many of them put in a great deal of preparation to very good effect.
  Hon. Members have questioned why the conference was held in China. It was a UN conference, and it was the turn of the Asian countries to determine the venue. They decided unanimously that it should be held in China. It would have been quite wrong for the United Kingdom not to be represented.
  In fact, when we got there, it was very evident that the conference was an excellent opportunity to air in public issues that I suspect have not been aired in public in Beijing ever before—specifically, the girl child issue. The Chinese were certainly not able to suppress the views of 36,000 women. I hope that, in a small way, holding the conference at that venue contributed towards voicing the concerns of many of us about human rights and the girl child in China.
  I have expressed before, and I am happy to put on record in the House, my absolute disgust with the way in which the conference was reported in the UK, other European countries and America. Those of us who attended the conference will know that the media, particularly the television companies, focused on what I can describe only as fringe activities, and totally missed the whole point of the constructive work done in Beijing and Huairou. I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the conference, where the NGOs did some extremely good work.

  539
  The Women's National Commission played a major role in providing support and information to NGOs in Beijing. It has planned a major conference called "Beyond Beijing", which will take place in the summer, and it has set up a working group on the theme "Growing up Female in the UK", which takes forward one of the key themes of the "Global Platform for Action" agreed in Beijing.
  The world conference has reinforced the spirit of partnership between the Government and other organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors with an interest in women and equal opportunities. Partnership is a vital tool in the advancement of women and equality between the sexes. For example, in developing the highly successful out-of-school child care initiative, the Government have worked closely with the Kids Club Network and other child care organisations. I know from work that is being done in my constituency and in Devon how much that is valued.
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, the Government are providing £60 million. I was very disappointed by how dismissive the hon. Member for Dulwich was of that funding. Naturally, we would be very interested to know what higher bid the Labour party is proposing, but, as usual, wherever it is asked to cost something that it has criticised, answer comes there none. Indeed, the Labour party tries to avoid putting figures to commitments or criticisms of funding whenever it can.
  Ms Corston: Absolutely.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Lady says, "Absolutely." I do not think that she should worry that we do not understand. We understand only too well why, in this debate for example, as in others, the Labour party will not put a price on the minimum wage. We know why. Figures have been bandied about by the Labour party and the Trades Union Congress.
  The Liberal Democrats should also be concerned, because they intend to rob us of jobs with that awful policy as well. The moment that the Labour party names a figure—whether it is £4.50, £5 or £5.10 an hour—every employer in the country, regardless of whether it is a large company, but especially if it is a small company, will be able to do their sums accurately and say, "What does that mean for the people I employ and the potential to employ people in future?"
  The reason why the Labour party has backed off from even saying what the minimum wage would be in today's marketplace is that, the moment it does, its cover is blown. Every company throughout the country would be able to say specifically what that would mean in terms of job losses. We all know that many women would be involved in those job losses, the very people whom Labour Members are purporting to represent.
  Ms Corston: The Minister will probably know that, some years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), when on the Opposition. Front Bench, asked the then Chancellor of the Exchequer about the tax rates that the Government proposed to introduce in the Budget, which was weeks away.
  My right hon. Friend was told by the then Chancellor that that was a stupid question. He said, in effect, "How can I possibly know what tax rates will be proposed in a
  540
  few weeks time?" If that holds true, why do Ministers make themselves so ridiculous by prating on about what we, the Opposition, would do? We are here to oppose the Government and to challenge their policies. Fancy asking what an Opposition will be doing when in government 14 months hence.
  Mrs. Browning: Fancy asking the Opposition what they would do. It was only a short while ago that figures were bandied about. I can remember clearly the TUC coming up with a figure—I think that it was £5.10. The moment that the TUC started to pop its head up above the parapet
  Ms Eagle: No.
  Mrs. Browning: If I am wrong, the hon. Lady must know the right figure. I shall gladly give way to her if she says that I have quoted the wrong figure. She must know the right figure. I shall give way if she will give me the right figure.
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Let me do that on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). We do not give the Government any figures, because they have fiddled every figure we have produced. In the lead-up to the general election, the Government fiddled all the figures. That was done by the Department that I was shadowing before the election. Figures were distorted beyond all recognition. The figure that the Minister has attributed to the TUC is incorrect. It was £4.15, not £5.10.
  Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for at least exposing a figure. Whatever the figure is, Joe Bloggs in my constituency, perhaps employing 10 or 12 people—
  Ms Eagle: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Browning: No. I will not give way, because I am responding to an intervention.
  As I was saying, Joe Bloggs in my constituency may be employing 10 or 12 people. If we were to say what the minimum wage would be—we are not that far away from a general election—he would be able to tell me, if he had to apply that wage to his staff payroll, how many people he would have to sack and how many people he would not employ the following year whom he had planned to employ. He might, of course, say, "That is all right. We can afford to pay that."
  Labour Members and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), a Liberal Democrat Member—I am a west country Member, representing part of an area where wages are lower than average within the United Kingdom—must understand that a minimum wage would be the kiss of death. I have heard everything that Opposition Members have said about women's wages. We want, of course, to see that people are paid a fair wage, but it is not the Government's role to introduce a minimum wage. Such a requirement would kill jobs, and the potential for more jobs, at a time when unemployment is consistently declining and is comparing favourably with unemployment levels elsewhere.
  At present, seven European countries have a minimum wage requirement. Two examples are France and Spain. They have shown us what a minimum wage does for jobs.

  541
  There are job losses for both women and men. If we are not to talk about figures in the United Kingdom, let us bear in mind what has happened in the countries where there is a minimum wage. That will enable us to recognise the reality of the policy. We see soaring unemployment, especially in low-wage sectors. That has an effect on young people, who do not command high salaries. They are at the bottom level. Youth unemployment, especially in Spain and France, which have the disgraceful policy of a minimum wage, is soaring.
  Mrs. Lait: The minimum wage in France is £200 a week. Is my hon. Friend aware that the French Government are now insisting that British travel firms that employ British chalet girls and tour guides and pay on average £120 a week should pay the French statutory minimum wage? Does she agree that chalet girls and tour guides will lose their jobs, and that British travel companies will go bust?
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend has summed the matter up.
  Labour talked about larger companies that voluntarily enter into employment packages and agreements with their employees on matters such as paternity rights. The hon. Member for Stockport seemed to be confused about why we should think that that was all right, but not want to introduce it on a statutory basis. It is simple: if companies feel that they can voluntarily put together an employment package covering matters such as paternity rights without jeopardising jobs, of course we support it.
  To introduce such a policy on a statutory basis, so that it would hit companies of all sizes in all regions, would not only kill jobs, but would especially penalise women's jobs. It would cause artificial discrimination, which would especially affect women of child-bearing age.
  Ms Eagle: The hon. Lady's argument would render wrong the Equal Pay Act 1970. The arguments used against the Act while it was being put on the statute book by Barbara Castle were precisely those that the Minister uses against the minimum wage: that, if women had the right to equal pay, it would destroy their jobs, because their wages would have to rise. Exactly the opposite has happened. More women are in the labour force than ever before. Is there not an inconsistency?
  Mrs. Browning: No. There are more jobs, but the hon. Lady is wrong to make that comparison. If men apply for the same jobs as women, we want equal pay, but we do not want jobs to be destroyed by a statutory minimum wage that would hit companies of all sizes. One of our great strengths, and the reason why we have declining unemployment, is that we do not have those non-wage labour costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) gave the example of chalet maids in France.
  Other European countries that are in competition with Britain would like us to embrace such a package, because they realise that, having signed up to it, they are uncompetitive with us. They are trying to persuade us to make our companies uncompetitive. The Labour and Liberal parties think that it is a jolly good idea. I do not, and nor do the Government. That is my last word on the minimum wage.
  542
  Both at home and abroad, much has been achieved, but nobody is resting on their laurels. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment will talk not only to non-governmental organisations but to Government Departments and Ministers in every Department, to make sure that equality for women is part of the psyche of every Government Minister and Department.
  In the "Global Platform for Action", that is called mainstreaming, and its implementation is regarded as desirable. We agree, and we feel that it is far better to mainstream through Government Departments, raise awareness and put it into action, than to have women regarded as a tiny body of people for whom special concessions have to be made, who stand out in the House as a poor Cinderella group.
  Much has been said about women in the House; we want more of them in the House. The Labour party has argued that it has got it right by breaking its own rules to get more women on their list. The hon. Member for Christchurch said that proportional representation would help get women in. There are many reasons why women do not come into the House; there is no one simple solution. Many of the views put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House are relevant.
  We have had a good debate, and I would like to mention some speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), as she usually does in these debates, made a substantial contribution, which represented business women in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) raised, in her inimitable way, several issues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"] I am not sure where she is. She said that nothing would change until men had babies.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: It will be a long wait.
  Mrs. Browning: Yes, I suspect that we will have a very long wait for that. We cannot afford to wait that long, although that would be one of the most equal opportunities that men could have in life. I am sorry that we cannot bring it forward more quickly.
  In a somewhat wider area of discussion, some hon. Members not only took the debate along the road of women's equality, but discussed the social effects of women's responsibilities, especially in the home and in child raising. There were thoughtful contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant), and, in perhaps the one of the most telling equal opportunity contributions of the evening, by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant), who flagged up something that is at the heart of our discussion.
  My hon. Friend spoke about women who, for whatever reason, are the subject of prejudice. If, as human beings or, perhaps more particularly, as parents responsible for bringing up children, we can instil into children a sense of respect for other people, regardless of gender, race or anything else that may be the subject of prejudice in daily life—my hon. Friend explained that well, as part of his own philosophy and approach to life—the attitude that he spoke about will be advanced, and we shall not have some of the problems that we have had to discuss tonight, involving prejudice against women not only in Parliament but elsewhere.

  543
  This has been a vigorous debate, and I am delighted that we have been able to hold it on the eve of what will be an important day tomorrow.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Mr. Paul Grecian
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hanley.]
  9.21 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: In October 1990, Paul Grecian and colleagues from his firm Ordtec were arrested on the charge of illegally exporting arms to Iraq. He was immediately granted bail and proceeded to fight his case. In February 1992, the trial was heard at Reading Crown court, and during the proceedings it transpired that several vital Government documents that would have proved Government knowledge of the on-going trade with Iraq were withheld.
  The prosecution viewed the documents, and falsely assured the judge that they were irrelevant. Public interest immunity certificates were signed and available for use if the judge refused to accept the assurances of lack of relevance. The evidence was suppressed, and Grecian and his colleagues had no option but to plead guilty. They were given suspended sentences.
  During the court proceedings, it was revealed that Grecian, voluntarily and without reward, had been supplying vital information to MI5 and MI6 for several years—evidence that clearly illustrated the Government's knowledge of trade with Iraq, as they were aware of nearly every shipment made to the middle east. In fact, knowledge of the supergun was first passed to the Government by Grecian as early as 1989.
  In February 1992, after the trial, Grecian began proceedings for an appeal. The high-profile Matrix Churchill case, almost identical to the Ordtec case, highlighted the unique position that Grecian had been forced to accept, because important and revealing documents were withheld by the Government.
  On 16 June 1994, Grecian was asked by a New Jersey prosecutor to provide evidence for an American lawsuit against the United States company Rexon, against which similar charges of selling arms to Iraq had been levied. Grecian provided evidence to the prosecutor in London—evidence that was witnessed by his legal representative, by a lawyer for Rexon, and by Donald Davidson, assistant prosecutor of the state of New Jersey.
  That evidence destroyed Davidson's case against the company, and as a result of Grecian's evidence the proceedings against Rexon executives were dropped, and the company pleaded guilty to a technical offence. Although the state charges against Rexon were dropped, those raised in the United States against Grecian were not.
  In January 1995, Grecian visited his girlfriend in South Africa. It was during that visit that his solicitor in the United Kingdom told him that he was wanted by Interpol. Her Majesty's Customs in the United Kingdom later revealed that the United States Justice Department had issued a red-notice extradition order. Normally, those against whom extradition orders are raised are advised of their situation, and offered the opportunity to take legal advice and dispute the charges on which such orders have been raised; a red-notice warrant, however, requires no such advice.

  545
  The warrant raised against Grecian was apparently active in 176 countries, including the United Kingdom—where, significantly, no attempt was made to execute it. A letter from the British consul general in Johannesburg, dated 8 February 1996, confirms that
  "The United States authorities approached Interpol in London in June 1995 asking them to trace Paul which they did. Interpol told the US authorities to submit extradition papers. To date these papers have not been submitted."
  In October 1995, the United Kingdom court appeal was held, and the Government finally released documents illustrating Ordtec's innocence. Further documents were released following the insistence of the Lord Chief Justice. The convictions of Grecian and his co-defendants were quashed, and they left the Court of Appeal free men. Although justice was finally done in the United Kingdom, however, we should reflect on the five-year period during which the four men were branded criminals, and therefore unable to pursue either substantial careers or a normal life style. That was because of a Government cover-up.
  In the autumn of 1995, Grecian planned a further personal trip to South Africa. He had been given influential contacts in the South African police with whom he could check his freedom and safety to travel. Grecian raised the visit with three South African officials, including the local head of Interpol in South Africa, Colonel David Bruce. All of them gave him the go-ahead. He now believes that he was trapped into going to Johannesburg by South African officials.
  As a final precaution before his journey, Grecian had two meetings with a Mr. Fuche of the South African high commission in London. Similar assurances were provided. Given those assurances, Grecian decided to travel to South Africa. On 14 December 1995, he left London for Capetown, on a journey that included a flight change at Johannesburg.
  At Johannesburg, Grecian was arrested. The arrest was the result of an Interpol red notice—a document of which the British authorities had been aware, and had ignored for more than a year. The charges were breach of United States arms export control legislation and bank fraud. It is believed that the charge of bank fraud was made in an attempt to secure extradition on the other charges, which, being customs offences, were not extraditable.
  On 18 December 1995, at the South African magistrates court at Kempton Park in Johannesburg, both Colonel Bruce and Mr. Fuche denied having any previous conversations with Grecian. It was also revealed that Colonel Bruce was the executive director of Interpol South Africa, and that Mr. Fuche was a detective superintendent in the South African police.
  The charge of bank fraud had been raised on the basis of a letter of credit issued by Bank Mellon, regarding funds for the shipment of fuse parts from the United States to the United Kingdom on behalf of Grecian's previous company, Ordtec. The letter was written by the bank, and the wording was prepared by its staff, under no influence of Grecian or his former colleagues. In fact, the goods were never shipped. Given those two points, the relevance of the letter to a charge of bank fraud is nebulous.
  Despite the flimsy status of the charges, Grecian was not granted bail on that occasion for a number of reasons: he was an habitual fugitive from justice; he had
  546
  substantial hidden financial resources; and British secret services would smuggle him out of South Africa or provide him with a second passport.
  An appeal was set for three days later, a period during which Grecian's family gathered various documents as evidence in his favour. The documents included his diary, which included entries of the meetings held with Mr. Fuche in London, and British Telecom bills, which itemised telephone calls made to Mr. Wright and to Mr. Bruce in South Africa.
  Information was gathered to counter the reasons that were given against bail. There was proof that Grecian had been required to report weekly to the UK police during a two-year period in which he was under investigation for the original arms to Iraq charges, and proof that he had no access to a passport, clearly showing that he was not a habitual fugitive of justice. There was evidence detailing Grecian's bankruptcy and his reliance for income on social security in London, almost from the date of his arrest until very recently.
  On 21 December 1995, a second appeal was held in Kempton Park magistrates court. Evidence proving previous contact with Mr. Fuche and Mr. Bruce was presented, and they reacted by amending their story to say that they had spoken with Grecian but had advised him not to travel.
  Despite the evidence of Mr. Fuche and Mr. Bruce, the evidence submitted by his family against the charges of bank fraud and perjury and that presented against the reasons for refusing bail, the request for bail was again turned down at that hearing, but on a number of new grounds. First, he was a foreigner. Secondly, he had no fixed abode in South Africa. Thirdly, he would probably have had access to false passports. Fourthly, the magistrates could not believe that Grecian thought he was safe to travel, and believed that he must have known that he was travelling at risk. Fifthly, he was defended by a prominent Queen's counsel in his case in the UK, thereby demonstrating his access to substantial funds. The concept of legal aid was not even recognised by the South African magistrate. The final reason for refusing bail was that he possessed a fax machine, which was another clear sign of wealth.
  Grecian appealed for bail to the Supreme Court of South Africa. Since he has been held in South Africa, he has been in court six times. On 4 January 1996, the appeal was heard at the Supreme Court, and a further request for bail was made. Bail was again denied, again for different reasons: Grecian had refused to go to the United States voluntarily; he had been acquitted in the UK on a technicality, so double jeopardy did not arise; in the past, the British high commission in South Africa had assisted those on bail to flee the country; and that, in this case, British intelligence would place a submarine off the South African shore to remove Grecian from their jurisdiction.
  On 22 January, Grecian again appeared in the magistrates court. He again presented an application for bail and requested that all information regarding any possible extradition be provided to the defence. The magistrate dismissed all applications. In his solicitor's words, the magistrate was
  "extremely hostile and refused to listen to all their arguments."

  547
  In a letter from prison, dated 27 February, to the British high commissioner to South Africa, Paul Grecian wrote:
  "Whilst I am incarcerated in Modderbee it is impossible for me to provide the input required by my legal representatives … I am in no position to generate funds to pay for my legal team and face the prospect of losing the services of my lawyers here in South African in the very near future."
  The application for extradition has now been postponed until 25 March. After a long adjournment, the magistrate returned to the court and made an order to the effect that the document requesting extradition was defective but that it would be provisionally accepted and that Paul Grecian had to remain in custody. By provisionally accepting the document, the magistrate is in effect allowing the state an opportunity to rectify the defect, even though the application has already been brought based on the defective request.
  Finally, I deal with the view of Grecian's defence counsel during his appeal in the UK last year. I have a note from Geoffrey Robertson QC, which says:
  "I am informed that a US prosecutor named Davidson has asserted that the Court of Appeal decision in the Ordtec case in which Paul's plea of guilty was declared invalid and his conviction quashed does not give rise in law to any question of double jeopardy. This is utterly false and, to the extent that it may be affecting the English and South African proceedings, it must be stopped. The fact that the conviction has been quashed means that Paul Grecian can never be tried again for the `Rexon' offence. Our law is clear to that effect … Paul's conviction was quashed on merit, because the documents suppressed by the Prosecution showed that he had a good defence. For this reason the Court of Appeal refused to order a retrial, and indeed the Prosecution did not even ask it to exercise its powers to do so. Personally, I think it is an outrage that the South African courts should bow to American pressure and hold Paul for extradition over a matter to which double jeopardy … plainly applies. I suspect that once the truth is investigated by the American courts they too will abandon the prosecution—after Paul has spent several years in jail."
  He says that, as soon as his present trial commitments are over, he hopes to be in a position to take up Paul Grecian's case in the international media.
  I have asked the South African high commission to look again at this matter. Clearly, something is very wrong. Paul Grecian is a British citizen. As everyone knows, the British Government refused to produce documents which would have supported his defence in 1992. They were not prepared to show that he risked his life gathering intelligence about Iraq and was the first agent to notify the authorities about the supergun.
  I think that every hon. Member knows that for more than 13 years I have campaigned as chairperson of the Iraqi Opposition in Britain. I do not usually argue for people who trade in arms—in fact, I think it is a despicable trade—but I will argue for justice on behalf of anyone who has been shown injustice. In this case, it is time that the Government tried to make amends for the many years that Paul Grecian has lost and been branded as a criminal in a situation involving a Government cover-up.
  I ask the Minister to make representations to the South African authorities so that Grecian can at least be granted bail and be in a better position to prove his innocence.
  9.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Several hon. Members have written to me about Paul Grecian's case and his father, John Grecian, tells me that he has written to every Member of Parliament and a number of Members of the other place. Although I would usually treat as confidential discussions between our consuls and an accused, it is for the convenience of the House and in the interests of an appreciation of the particular circumstances of this case that I welcome this opportunity to put on record the role of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Mr. Grecian's case.
  As far as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is concerned, Mr. Grecian's predicament is basically a consular matter. Mr. Grecian's situation has nothing to do with his previous relationship with the intelligence services, which was documented in the Scott report.
  It may be helpful to hon. Members if I outline the background to the case. In February 1992, Paul Grecian, together with others, faced two conspiracy counts in relation to breaches of the United Kingdom export licensing regime. The Crown alleged that he applied for and obtained export licences to ship a fuse assembly line to Iraq—misdescribed as a valve gauge assembly line—in November 1989. The sub-assemblies were imported to the United Kingdom from a United States company called Rexon and were subsequently returned to the United States in about May 1990. Mr. Grecian entered a plea of guilty, but he subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, and the appeal was determined in his favour on the ground of material irregularity in non-disclosure.
  On 13 December 1993, the United States district court issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Grecian for conspiracy to violate the United States Export Control Act, making false statements to the United States Department of State in order to obtain the export licence and for bank fraud, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). A red notice was issued in 1994 through the Interpol network at the request of the United States authorities. A country can issue an Interpol red notice to alert other countries that a person is wanted in that country to face charges and that that person's extradition will be sought from a country with which there is an extradition treaty. Her Majesty's Government do not treat a red notice as an automatic arrest warrant.
  At the request of the United States authorities, the Interpol office in the United Kingdom traced Mr. Grecian and told the United States authorities in June 1995 that the United Kingdom would require extradition papers before any action could be considered. To date, the United States authorities have not submitted extradition papers to Her Majesty's Government.
  We now move to the more recent past and the matter of Paul Grecian's arrest in South Africa. As the hon. Lady stated, Mr. Grecian was arrested at Johannesburg airport on 15 December 1995 while travelling from the United Kingdom to visit his fiancée in Cape Town. He was arrested on the strength of the red notice issued by Interpol at the request of the United States authorities. Our consular staff were informed of Mr. Grecian's arrest in the early evening of 15 December by Mr. Grecian's lawyer at the time, Mr. Matzeorf. Our consular duty officer was able to speak to Mr. Grecian over the phone that evening.
  A bail hearing was held on 18 December, when Mr. Grecian was remanded in custody until 21 December to give the South African authorities sufficient time to

  549
  consider his application. The bail hearing was held over 21 and 22 December and the application was refused. Mr. Grecian was remanded in custody until 22 January 1996 and he was subsequently transferred from Pretoria Moot police station to Modderbee prison. The magistrate hearing the bail application refused the application, because he was not satisfied that Mr. Grecian would adhere to the bail conditions.
  Before the 21 and 22 December hearing, our consul in Johannesburg, Miss Ann Thiel, visited Mr. Grecian on 20 December at Pretoria Moot police station. She was accompanied by Mr. Grecian's lawyer, Mr. Hodes. The meeting was private—no police officers present—and lasted almost two hours. Mr. Grecian told Miss Thiel that he had previously visited South Africa between 2 and 13 January 1995. Before his departure from South Africa, he said that he had received a call from his lawyer in the United Kingdom to say that an Interpol extradition warrant raised in the United States had been issued for his arrest. Mr. Grecian left South Africa as planned and seemingly without problem in January 1995.
  Mr. Grecian said that he had contacted the South African high commission in London and the Interpol office in Pretoria in September 1995 asking whether it would be safe for him to visit South Africa to finalise his wedding plans. He said that he received oral assurances that, as far as the South African authorities were aware, no red notice had been issued for his detention. The South African high commission has rejected that claim, and says that both he and his UK solicitors were told of the Interpol notice against him and that he was warned that he risked being arrested and extradited to the United States if he returned to South Africa.
  After Mr. Grecian's transfer to Modderbee prison, Miss Thiel, our consul, contacted the prison authorities and asked that he be given his own cell because of an attempted assault on him by other detainees while at the court. The prison authorities agreed to the request, and Mr. Grecian's father has acknowledged Miss Thiel's role in that.
  Miss Thiel visited Mr. Grecian at Modderbee prison on 31 December and the commander of the prison, Colonel Nolte, was present at that meeting. Colonel Nolte told Miss Thiel that he had been contacted by the premier of Gauteng province, where the prison is located, and he had heard reports that Mr. Grecian was being mistreated in the prison. Mr. Grecian told Miss Thiel that that was definitely not the case, and that, despite his ordeal, he was in reasonable spirits.
  A further application for bail was heard on 4 January 1996, and it was again refused. As before, the magistrate was not satisfied that Mr. Grecian would honour his bail conditions if released. The magistrate believed that Mr. Grecian would flee to the UK. Mr. Grecian's defence asserted that he would not be able to leave South Africa. The magistrate believed that Mr. Grecian would be able to obtain a second passport in addition to the one that is being held by the South African authorities.
  Mr. Grecian made a further court appearance on 22 January, at which his bail application was refused, and he was remanded in custody until 16 February. When Miss Thiel visited Mr. Grecian on 31 January, he was again in good spirits and appeared well. He told Miss
  550
  Thiel that he received regular phone calls from his fiancée and his father, and he acknowledged that the conditions where he now was were better, but we continue to monitor his welfare.
  Mr. Grecian's first extradition hearing was held on 16 February, and the prosecution submitted the extradition papers, which were received from the UK authorities. The defence claimed that the request for extradition was flawed in that it had been submitted to the Department of Foreign Affairs, not the Minister of Justice. The defence claimed that the request was not therefore valid under the US-South African extradition treaty; the prosecution argued that the request was valid and asked the magistrate for an order for extradition. The defence lawyer said that he had received the extradition papers only two days previously and asked for a postponement to give him time to consider the documentation. The case was subsequently adjourned until 25 March.
  Our consul, Miss Thiel, visited Mr. Grecian again on 19 February. He was well, but complained that his conditions in the prison had been restricted. He said that he was no longer allowed to wander around the prison and was restricted to making two telephone calls a day. Miss Thiel raised those complaints with Colonel Nolte. Colonel Nolte confirmed that the prison authorities had tried to be as helpful to Mr. Grecian as possible, allowing him privileges that other prisoners were not usually allowed. However, other detainees in the prison had complained at that apparent unfairness, and Mr. Grecian was now receiving the same treatment as other prisoners in Modderbee who were on remand.
  Mr. Grecian's father has argued that, because the US district court charge of conspiracy is similar to the one that Mr. Grecian faced in the UK in relation to UK law, this is a case of double jeopardy, as the hon. Lady clearly set out. If Mr. Grecian's legal advisers believe that double jeopardy might apply to the facts of his case, they will no doubt argue the point before the South African court. It is now for the South African court to decide whether Mr. Grecian will be extradited to the United States and, if so, on which charges he would be extradited.
  As to whether the United Kingdom authorities should demand Mr. Grecian's release, it is contrary to international practice for official intervention to be made in cases before foreign courts which are still sub judice and until all local legal procedures have been completed. Consideration is then given to such intervention if there are prima facie grounds for believing that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Since his arrest, Mr. Grecian has received, and will continue to receive, full consular support from our staff in South Africa. The same support would be extended to any British citizen in Mr. Paul Grecian's situation.
  We shall continue to monitor the case closely, and our consular staff will do all that they properly can to help Mr. Grecian. I give the hon. Lady the assurance tonight that, if there are any further details of which she should be informed, I will write to her personally. I thank her for her interest in Paul Grecian's case.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Mr. Stephan Adolph Kock
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the sponsors of Mr. Stephan Adolph Kock's application for British nationality granted on 20 March 1969. [18976]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No. It is not our practice to disclose such details.

  Blackmail
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases arrests for attempted blackmail by serious fraud squad detectives did not lead to charges(a) in 1994 and (b) in 1995. [19356]

  Mr. Maclean
  I assume the question refers to the Metropolitan police fraud squad. I understand that the figures available to the Metropolitan police do not distinguish arrests by the fraud squad from others and are kept by financial year. Figures for 1994–95 are not available, but so far in financial year 1995–96 there have been three arrests made by the Metropolitan police for attempted blackmail which have not led to charges.

  Hong Kong Citizens
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which categories of(a) passport holders and (b) non-passport holders, settled in Hong Kong prior to 1 July 1997, will be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as dependant relatives; and if he will make a statement. [19473]

  Mr. Kirhope
  To qualify for indefinite leave to remain as a dependant relative, any person who is subject to immigration control has to meet the requirements of the immigration rules.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what type of British passport ethnic minority people settled in Hong Kong will be eligible to apply; what rights such passports will confer on their holders; and if he will make a statement explaining the arrangements for passport applications. [19475]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The ethnic minorities are eligible for the types of British passport which correspond to the citizenship they hold. Those who are successful in British nationality selection are entitled to British citizenship passports with right of abode in the United Kingdom. The majority will be entitled to a British dependent territories citizen—BDTC—passport or its successor, the British national (overseas)—BN(O)—passport. Any BDTC who would otherwise be stateless on 1 July 1997 will automatically become a British overseas citizen—BOC. BDTCs, BN(O)s and BOCs all enjoy visa-free travel to 298
  the United Kingdom, an entitlement to registration as a British citizen following settlement and five years' residence here, and British consular protection in appropriate circumstances. Applications in Hong Kong for British passports can be made to the Hong Kong immigration department.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) war service and (b) other widows settled in Hong Kong are entitled to British passports; and if he will make a statement. [19472]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I understand that, of the 23 widows of men who served in the defence of Hong Kong during the second world war who are resident in Hong Kong 18 are British dependent territories citizens or British nationals (overseas) and are therefore eligible for appropriate British passports. The number of other widows in Hong Kong who are eligible for British passports is not known. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced during his recent visit to Hong Kong that the Government would facilitate a private Member's Bill to give British citizenship to the wives and widows of ex-service men who served in the defence of Hong Kong during the second world war.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement explaining who in Hong Kong will be eligible to visa-free access to the United Kingdom from Hong Kong after 1 July 1997; what endorsement will be made to their passports before they leave Hong Kong; what will be the procedures for obtaining such endorsement; and what period of leave to enter the United Kingdom will such passport holders be granted on entry to the United Kingdom. [19474]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Holders of British national (overseas) or Hong Kong (special administrative region) passports after 1 July 1997 will not require a visa to travel to the United Kingdom for a short visit. They will not require specific entry clearance endorsed in their passports except for those purposes for which, under the immigration rules, entry clearance is mandatory. They will, however, need to satisfy the immigration officer at the port of entry that they meet the requirements of the immigration rules. They will be granted leave to enter appropriate to the purpose of their visit.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) heads of households and (b) their dependants in Hong Kong have, to date, been issued with British passports; what was the total number of British passports which Her Majesty's Government announced would be issued; what plans he has to issue more British passports to heads of household and dependants; and if he will make a statement. [19476]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 29 February 1996, 48,610 principal beneficiaries and 80,866 dependants had been registered as British citizens under the selection scheme. On Second Reading of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill, the then Home Secretary estimated"the absolute maximum number of people who might benefit"
  as 225,000 people. The selection scheme is, however, constructed on the basis of principal beneficiaries and the Act limits them to 50,000; there is no discretion to vary that number. It is the family size of the principal beneficiaries that will determine the total number of

  299
  beneficiaries, not estimates made in 1990. The Government have no plans to introduce further legislation to amend the scheme.

  Crime Statistics
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the(a) crime clear-up and (b) the conviction rates for each police authority area in each of the last five years. [18958]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested on clear-up rates is published in table 2.11 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1994", a copy of which is available in the Library. Information on conviction rates by police force area is given in the table.

  Conviction rates for indictable offences by police force area 1990–94

  Percentage

  Police force area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Avon and Somerset

  64

  63

  60

  56

  57

  Bedfordshire

  63

  60

  59

  55

  59

  Cambridgeshire

  71

  67

  67

  64

  58

  Cheshire

  78

  73

  71

  73

  73

  Cleveland

  71

  64

  60

  59

  61

  Cumbria

  79

  75

  73

  72

  72

  Derbyshire

  73

  67

  65

  62

  61

  Devon and Cornwall

  82

  72

  72

  69

  65

  Dorset

  73

  67

  66

  69

  65

  Durham

  65

  61

  61

  63

  63

  Essex

  69

  62

  62

  62

  60

  Gloucestershire

  68

  67

  63

  61

  63

  Greater Manchester

  78

  77

  73

  74

  66

  Hampshire

  73

  68

  69

  66

  67

  Hertfordshire

  75

  64

  59

  59

  58

  Humberside

  77

  76

  74

  72

  73

  Kent

  84

  87

  82

  77

  77

  Lancashire

  75

  75

  77

  69

  69

  Leicestershire

  71

  67

  65

  59

  56

  Lincolnshire

  77

  69

  73

  70

  74

  City of London

  67

  67

  59

  66

  64

  Merseyside

  66

  64

  60

  63

  59

  Metropolitan Police

  79

  73

  70

  62

  63

  Norfolk

  84

  82

  84

  83

  86

  Northamptonshire

  67

  64

  60

  59

  57

  Northumbria

  70

  65

  64

  63

  60

  North Yorkshire

  74

  68

  66

  68

  68

  Nottinghamshire

  68

  61

  61

  59

  57

  South Yorkshire

  74

  71

  67

  67

  65

  Staffordshire

  65

  65

  62

  60

  60

  Suffolk

  75

  72

  68

  69

  68

  Surrey

  69

  67

  62

  62

  61

  Sussex

  73

  69

  69

  66

  66

  Thames Valley

  71

  65

  64

  62

  59

  Warwickshire

  82

  77

  68

  66

  65

  West Mercia

  74

  74

  69

  67

  65

  West Midlands

  70

  65

  59

  60

  60

  West Yorkshire

  73

  69

  63

  61

  59

  Wiltshire

  74

  71

  70

  70

  68

  Dyfed Powys

  67

  65

  62

  61

  55

  Gwent

  66

  65

  67

  61

  64

  North Wales

  79

  79

  66

  67

  67

  South Wales

  67

  66

  61

  62

  61

  England and Wales

  73

  69

  66

  64

  63

  Citizenship Applications
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the fee levels for citizenship applications. [20162]
  300
  Mr. Kirkhope
  Citizenship fees were last changed in March 1991 and some changes are necessary in order to meet the Government's policy of recovering no more than the cost of processing citizenship applications. New British Nationality (Fees) Regulations 1996 are being laid before Parliament today to introduce the following fee levels with effect from 1 April 1996:

  Present fees £

  New fees £

  Registration (Adult or minor)

  85

  120

  Naturalisation on grounds of marriage to a British citizen

  135

  120

  All other naturalisations

  170

  150

  The fees for applications for naturalisation, which represent about 75 per cent. of all applications, have been reduced significantly. At the same time, the opportunity has been taken to remove the element of cross-subsidisation between applications for registration and naturalisation which has come to light since fee levels were last revised. This has led to an increase in the fee for applicants for registration.

  The existing arrangements for joint applicants will be unchanged: husbands and wives applying together for naturalisation will continue to pay one single fee, as will minor children of the same parent applying together for registration.

  The practice of returning a nominal amount where an application is subsequently withdrawn or refused has been reviewed. It has become apparent that the difference in the cost of successful and unsuccessful applications is negligible. Unsuccessful applicants who apply on or after 1 April 1996 will therefore pay the full cost of processing their applications and will not receive a refund.

  The new regulations will also increase the fees payable to the Home Office for renouncing citizenship and for supplying copy certificates and other documents from £15 to £20. The fee for administering the oath of allegiance which is payable to the person administering the oath will be increased from £3.50 to £5 in order to bring it into line with fees for analogous work under the Commissioners for Oaths (Fees) Order 1993.

  It is expected that the revised fee levels will provide sufficient income to meet the costs of processing applications over the period April 1996 to April 1997.

  Employment Law
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been of employers for employing persons with no entitlement to work in the United Kingdom in each year from 1988 until 1994. [18238]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 29 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 13 December 1995, Official Report, column 661.
  301

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the review of the legal framework governing accountability and propriety in public bodies and the arrangements for their external audit, undertaken in response to recommendations in the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [20036]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government have published a consultation paper, "Spending Public Money: Governance and Audit Issues", Cm 3179, which has been laid in both Houses. The paper covers executive non-departmental public bodies, NHS bodies and local government and, as regards audit arrangements, what the Nolan committee has called local public spending bodies. Comments have been invited to a 14 June deadline.

  The proposals on personal accountability include a more consistent way of handling conflicts of interest on the part of board members. Codes of conduct are planned for staff of executive NDPBs and NHS bodies. NDPB and NHS board members will be protected from the costs of personal civil liability on certain conditions. The proposals make it clear that executive NDPB accounting officers, working under their boards, are responsible for propriety in a broad sense, as Nolan recommended. The Government are not persuaded that provisions similar to surcharging in local government should be extended into areas where other sanctions, including the power of dismissal, are available. Further guidance is being provided on openness, taking account of the Nolan committee's standard of best practice as appropriate. Executive NDPBs should make records of decisions available wherever possible, and should publish reports containing at least a summary of their accounts. The Comptroller and Auditor General is encouraged to develop systematic work on comparative performance.

  External audit arrangements should support lines of accountability and include an emphasis on regularity and value for money. There should be an element independent of the audited body involved in setting standards, defining audit practice and laying down reporting requirements. Duplication should be avoided. Reports should be addressed outside the audited body on major issues arising from the audit. The Government will ensure that the Comptroller and Auditor General has inspection rights over all executive NDPBs which he does not audit. He has a key role where Parliament has established Ministers' accountability through legislation; elsewhere, other arrangements are likely to provide better support of accountability. The Government accept the Nolan committee's recommendation that the Audit Commission should be able at its own discretion to publish public interest reports on NHS bodies.

  Funding bodies should ensure that bodies receiving grants have adequate financial control arrangements. Education and housing funding bodies should as a matter of good practice require external auditors of bodies which they fund to report to them immediately if they find serious financial weakness or irregularity. They should consider ways in which they can draw on the expertise of the national audit agencies on audit arrangements and value-for-money work.
  302
  The paper proposes that the audit agencies, acting together, should commission an independent review of the interface between them. The paper gives examples of cases where public bodies audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General should ensure that he has appropriate access to contractors' records. He is invited to consider letting private sector firms compete with NAO audit staff to undertake certain audits, without affecting his statutory position as auditor.

  The Government intend to consult further on the most suitable arrangements for the external audit of local authorities and health bodies in Northern Ireland.

  The differences between sectors mean that imposing a single, uniform structure would require large-scale changes in their relationships with Parliament, requiring major legislation. The Government believe that the best way forward is to build on, and spread, good practice.

ENVIRONMENT

  Wetlands
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals to protect wetlands; if these proposals will include riparian zone protection; and how they will affect agriculture and rural communities. [18603]

  Mr. Clappison
  As a leading supporter of the Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance the United Kingdom is committed to protecting wetlands and promoting their wise use. There are numerous mechanisms and initiatives in place to protect UK wetlands, in particular Ramsar listing and the classification of special protection areas under the birds directive, which includes river floodplains and water meadows. The development of catchment management plans and estuary management plans are among other initiatives under way. In addition, the Government intend to propose certain rivers as special areas of conservation under the habitats directive. All these initiatives are pursued in co-operation with landowners and other interested parties.

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies in each of the past five years, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [19035]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Details of non-information technology and information technology thefts for the Department for the 1994–95 and 1995–96, to date, financial years, including details of thefts over £25,000, are given in the table. However, the remainder of the information requested could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  303

  1994–95

  1995–96 (to end February)

  Number

  Value

  Number

  Value

  Non-IT Thefts

  DOE

  4

  £1,847

  4

  £868

  IT Thefts

  DOE

  24

  £40,636

  11

  £44,417

  IT Thefts with a Value of Over £5000

  1994–95—DOE

  (a) £25,000—Theft of computer components from 43 machines in the Government Office East Midlands and the Highways Agency.

  1995–96—DOE

  (a) £24,000—Theft of computer components from 2 Marsham Street.

  1995–96—PH

  (a) £17,037—Theft of computer components from St. Christopher House.

  Castle Cement
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will use his powers under section 12(5) of the Environmental Protection act 1990 to instruct Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to revoke the authorisation granted to Castle Cement to burn secondary liquid fuel at its Clitheroe cement works. [18930]

  Mr. Clappison
  No case has been made to the Secretary of State as to why he should do this.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of(a) the loss to business and (b) the number of redundancies from the reduction in funding to the home energy efficiency scheme. [19265]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The changes to the home energy efficiency scheme will create opportunities for businesses involved in it. Householders aged over 60 who are not on benefit will be entitled to a substantial discount. There is no reason why the number of installations should not be the same as in the previous year if installers market the scheme properly.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation she held with businesses before the decision to reduce Government funding for the home energy efficiency scheme. [19266]

  Mr. Jones
  Public expenditure decisions are not discussed before the Chancellor's Budget statement to the House.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the level of Government funding of the home energy efficiency scheme in each year since its starting date; and if he will give the figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98, in real terms and as a percentage change from the previous year. [19267]

  Mr. Jones
  The information requested is as follows. The figures show that funding for the home energy efficiency scheme for the next financial year will be 280 per cent. more than in 1991–92, its first full year of operation. This increase can be matched by few if any other programmes.
  304

  Year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Percentage change

  1990–911

  1

  n/a

  1991–92

  26

  n/a

  1992–93

  34

  +B;31

  1993–94

  42

  +24

  1994–95

  83

  +98

  1995–96

  2106

  +28

  1996–97

  373

  -31

  1997–98

  475

  +3

  1 From 1 January.

  2 Estimated.

  3 Allocated.

  4 Planned.

  Taking 1995–96 as the base year, and taking inflation as 3 per cent., the allocation for 1996–97 and the planned allocation for 1997–98 are equivalent in real terms to £71 million.

  Colney Hospital, Norfolk
  Mr. Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to call in the planning application for a new hospital at Colney, South Norfolk. [18381]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 22 February,Official Report, column 279. As the adopted local plan makes specific provision for such a development, it is unlikely that the Secretary of State would wish to intervene.

  Thoresby Colliery (Fatal Accident)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the director general of the Health and Safety Executive about the fatal accident at Thoresby colliery, Nottinghamshire, on Monday 4 March; and if he will make a statement. [19517]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None. The Health and Safety Executive is conducting a full investigation into the accident.

  Council Tax Relief (Wandsworth)
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the total sum, (b) the amount paid to the London borough of Wandsworth, (c) the percentage of the total paid to the London borough of Wandsworth and (d) the amount paid per dwelling in the London borough of Wandsworth, in traditional relief in respect of the council tax in each year from 1993–94 to 1995–96. [19494]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Total amount of transitional relief in England:

  1993–94: £378,652,826

  1994–95: £111,283,108

  1995–96: £27,178,1791

  (b) Amount of transitional relief paid to London Borough of Wandsworth:

  1993–94: £35,984,443

  1994–95: £23,594,503

  1995–96: £10,100,6351

  305

  (c) Percentage of total amount of transitional relief paid to London Borough of Wandsworth:

  1993–94: 9.5 per cent.

  1994–95: 21.2 per cent.

  1995–96: 37 per cent.1

  (d) Average amount paid per chargeable dwelling in London Borough of Wandsworth:

  1993–94: £323.75

  1994–95: £209.29

  1995–96: £89.31

  These figures are averages. The actual amount of transitional relief varied according to a household's council tax banding, its composition and its previous liability for community charge.

  1 Information for 1995–96 is provisional and is subject to final grant claims to be made during 1996–97.

TRANSPORT

  Central Railway
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Central Railway plc has applied to him for directions under rule 12 of the Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) Rules granting waivers from compliance with certain application requirements in respect of the Central Railway project. [20250]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes. Copies of the applications for rule 12 waiver directions, and of the supporting documentation provided by Central Railway plc, have been placed in the House of Commons Library. Members wishing to make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concerning his decision whether to agree to issue any such directions should write to him by Friday 22 March.

  HGV Drivers (Eyesight Tests)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has received from lorry drivers' representatives as to the(a) numbers and (b) proportion of HGV drivers who will be barred from driving as a result of changes to eye tests from 1 July. [19570]

  Mr. Norris
  I have recently received suggestions that very large numbers of drivers of large goods and passenger-carrying vehicles will lose their entitlement to drive these vehicles as a result of changes to regulations on eyesight standards. No supporting evidence for such estimates has been provided and in some cases they are clearly based on a misunderstanding of the scope of the changes. The 1994 consultation document on the changes included an estimate, based on analysis of Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency records, that about 3,000 drivers would be affected by the proposed changes. This estimate was not challenged in the responses to consultation.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with HGV drivers' representatives concerning changes in eyesight tests. [19569]
  306
  Mr. Norris
  The consultation document on the proposed changes to the regulations on eyesight requirements issued in October 1994 was sent to a wide range of organisations, including representatives of HGV drivers. None requested discussions at the time.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when new European regulations changing eyesight regulations for HGV drivers were agreed; how the United Kingdom representative voted; and what immediate publicity was undertaken. [19516]

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom voted, in 1991, for adoption of the second EC directive on driving licences, 91/439/EEC, which sets minimum standards for health, driving test and licensing requirements across the EU to underpin road safety and in the interests of free movement of nationals of the member states. The Department subsequently, in October 1994, undertook an extensive consultation specifically on changes to the regulations on eyesight standards. A press notice was issued then as well as last October, when I announced the Government's decision.

  Emergency Towing Study Team Report
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 28 February,Official Report, column 581, what amendments he has made to the report of the emergency towing study team as originally delivered to him; and if he will make a statement. [18900]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: The report is an internal document, but it will be published and placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report was amended to remove commercially sensitive information which was provided to the study team in confidence, and material which was outside the terms of reference of the study.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what evidence has been submitted to him since the start of construction of the Newbury bypass on new environmental damage; and if he will make a statement; [19065]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the Newbury bypass since construction began; and if he will publish them with his response; [19066]

  (3) what estimates he has made of the effect of completion of the Newbury bypass on (a) volumes of traffic on the A34, (b) volumes of traffic in Newbury itself and (c) journey times of traffic travelling (i) through Newbury and (ii) along the bypass; [19111]

  (4) what has been the cost of (a) police and (b) security at the site of the proposed Newbury bypass since October 1995; and if he will make a statement. [19072]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 7 March 1996:

  As you know, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the Newbury Bypass.
  307
  The cost of security for the advance works contract incurred so far is £1,182,000. The cost of Policing the work is a matter for the Thames Valley Police force.

  You ask for details of the effect of the Bypass on traffic flows on the A34, and on the rest of Newbury. On the A34 itself, the bypass provides substantial relief by allowing longer distance through traffic to avoid the town. The table below shows the benefits the bypass would bring to the A34 Inner Relief Road on which traffic flows would be reduced by about %. The figures for the residual local traffic remaining on the A34 after the bypass is open do not allow for the potential additional benefits to be provided by local traffic management measures.

  Without bypass

  With bypass

  Year

  Low growth

  High growth

  Low growth

  High growth

  2000

  57,000

  63,000

  35,000

  39,000

  2005

  61,000

  70,000

  38,000

  43,000

  2010

  65,000

  78,000

  40,000

  48,000

  Note:

  The flows given are Annual Average Daily Traffic for low and high growth.

  There would be greater benefits to other sections of the A34 bypassed by the scheme, for example traffic along Tothill Straight will be reduced by up to 75%.

  In addition to the general relief provided by the bypass there would be particular benefits from the substantial reductions (typically 65–70%) in heavy lorry traffic (estimated at up to 400 an hour at peak times) using the A34 through the town.

  Traffic flows on other major routes through the town would also be affected by the bypass. The change in traffic patterns will of course depend on what traffic management measures are brought forward. For example, on the A343 substantial flow reductions of about 30% are forecast. There would be some increases on routes feeding the bypass, for example flows on the A4 on the west side of the town would increase slightly by up to 5%. However, in overall terms the net effect of the bypass would be to remove substantial volumes of traffic, particularly heavy lorry lorries, from the town.

  As part of the traffic appraisal for Newbury Bypass, we have assessed the journey times of traffic travelling through Newbury and on the proposed bypass. The savings in travelling time have also been assessed as part of the economic evaluation of the scheme.

  For through traffic using the bypass instead of the existing A34, COBA shows average peak period time savings of 15 minutes when the scheme opens. Currently, at the worst times, delays can be up to and over one hour. In the longer term, the savings would be significantly greater since congestion on the existing road would become much worse without the bypass. A major benefit to industrial and business road users will be the much improved journey time reliability provided by the bypass.

  Since site clearance operations began, we have received about 700 written representations against the scheme, mostly from outside the area, and a small number from supporters. We have previously received nearly 20,000 expressions of support for the bypass. It would be inappropriate to publish these letters without the consent of the writers which could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The reply to the recent representations against the scheme has been broadly along the lines of the draft attached.

  No evidence of new environmental damage has been submitted although it has been suggested that the Desmoulins' Whorl Snail, a non-priority annex II species in the Habitats Directive, may be present on the route. It has been established that these snails are present elsewhere in the Kennet and Lamboum valleys. We are liaising with English Nature and carrying out further surveys to determine whether the snails are in the area affected by the bypass and if so, what further mitigation measures are necessary.
  308

  Aviation Research
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the research projects sponsored by his Deapartment relating to aviation over the last five years.[19084]

  Mr. Norris
  The research projects relating to aviation undertaken over the last five years in which the Department of Transport has had a financial involvement are as follows:

  Safety

  Explosion Hazard Research

  Signature Identification of Pressure Pulse Research

  Helicopter Safety Research

  Crash Impact Research

  Environmental

  Aeronox

  Aerotrace

  Polinat

  Ground Emissions Study

  Field Study into Aircraft Noise and Sleep Disturbance

  Measurement and Modelling of Helicopter Noise

  Social Survey Study of Attitudes to Helicopter Noise

  Research into Helicopter Noise Characteristics and Future Trends

  Review of Departure Noise Limits at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports

  Studies into Ground Noise at Night at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports and Arrival Noise at the same airports

  Transport Security

  Twenty-five research projects are being or have been carried out in the area of transport security, although not all are exclusive in the aviation field.

  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. [18356]

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

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 7 March 1996:

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

  No requests for assistance from bodies outside of the Joint Response Centre have been received by the Marine Pollution Control Unit.

  Aircraft (Landing Slots)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list for each major UK airport the number of aircraft taking off without take-off slots, together with the airline name and country of registration for each of the last five years; [19081]

  (2) if he will list by each major airport the number of aircraft which arrived without landing slots together with the airline name and country of registration for each of the last five years. [19080]
  309
  Mr. Norris
  No records are kept for UK airports of the extent of unscheduled take-offs or landings, that is, for which no slot has been obtained in advance. However, an assessment for Heathrow during June 1995 found an average of five unscheduled departures each weekday, in addition to opportunity slots obtained by business and general aviation. Most of the unscheduled movements operated by commercial airlines are maintenance, positioning or testing flights; only a minority, such as diversions from other airports, are passenger carrying.

  Gatwick Airport
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many take-off and landing slots are currently occupied by domestic and short-haul services at Gatwick airport. [18662]

  Mr. Norris
  For the current winter season 64,599 slots at Gatwick airport are at present occupied by services to or from domestic or short-haul destinations.

  EU Directives
  Sir Richard Body
  To as the Secretary of State for Transport how many Community directives were introduced by him to United Kingdom law in 1995. [18293]

  Mr. Watts
  During 1995, the Secretary of State for Transport introduced 13 statutory instruments, the purpose of which was to implement EC legislation into UK law.

  Aircraft (Safety)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the countries from which aircraft are banned by the Federal Aviation Authority from flying into the United States of America and the equivalent Civil Aviation Authority list; [18669]

  (2) if he will list by country the number of inspections undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority on aircraft flying into the United Kingdom; [18670]

  (3) if he will list the countries identified as having safety oversight procedure problems by the US Federal Aviation Authority; and how many aircraft registered by those countries entered the UK in each of the last five years; [19079]

  (4) how many inspections were undertaken on foreign registered aircraft within the UK and the country of registration in the last five years; and if he will list the defects found during those inspections. [19083]

  Mr. Norris
  Before granting permission for a non-European Economic Area aircraft to fly to the United Kingdom, we seek confirmation that the aircraft will be operated in accordance with international safety standards established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. This confirmation is normally in the form of certificates issued by the aviation authorities of the state of registration of the aircraft, stating that the aircraft will be operated in accordance with ICAO safety standards. If there is any doubt about the safe operation of an aircraft, no permit will be issued until we are satisfied about its safety. This may involve asking the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct a physical check of the aircraft concerned.
  310
  Since 1993, we have instructed the CAA to carry out checks of aircraft from the following countries:

  Country

  Number of checks

  Bulgaria

  1

  Ghana

  2

  Nigeria

  1

  Russia

  5

  Sweden

  2

  Tajikstan

  1

  Turkey

  1

  Venezuela

  1

  Yugoslavia

  1

  In addition, the CAA carries out inspections, without instruction from the Department, on any aircraft that it has reason to believe may be unsafe to fly.

  A list of deficiencies uncovered by the physical checks is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to issue a further White Paper on airport policy; and if he will make a statement. [18291]

  Mr. Norris
  We have no plans to issue a new White Paper on airports policy.

  BR Vendor Unit
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sales completed by the BR vendor unit, with the name of purchaser and price paid in each case. [16228]

  Mr. Watts
  [pursuant to his answer, 22 February 1996, c. 274]: The sales completed by the British Rail Board are listed. Those where the BR vendor unit has been involved are marked with an asterisk.

  Gross proceeds from the sales to date of businesses sold by BR amount to some £304 million. As explained in the Government's response of 14 December 1995 to the Transport Select Committee fourth report, on railway finances, it would be contrary to the commercial interests of British Rail and the Government to publish details of individual sales at this stage, as that may prejudice similar sales still in progress. Details of individual sales completed will be made public in due course.

  In addition to that figure, the sale of the rolling stock leasing companies, which was handled by my Department, realised £1,822.23 million.

  BR vendor unit

  Purchaser

  Freight

  Red Star*

  Raid Ltd.

  Rail Express Systems Ltd.

  North and South Railways Ltd.

  Other businesses

  Special Train Unit (sale of certain coaches and other assets only)*

  Flying Scotsman Railway Ltd.

  Meldon Quarry Ltd.*

  Camas UK Ltd.

  BR Telecommunications Ltd.*

  Racal Electronics Ltd.

  311

  BR vendor unit

  Purchaser

  OBS Services Ltd.*

  The European Rail Catering Company Ltd.

  BR Design Offices

  DCU Birmingham*

  Owen Williams Ltd.

  Mainline Swindon*

  Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick

  IDG Glasgow*

  Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick

  BPE Mechanical and Engineering Consultancy, Doncaster*

  James Scott Ltd., a member of AMEC plc

  Civil Engineering Design Group, York*

  British Steel plc

  Powertrack Engineering Company Ltd.*

  WS Atkins Consultants Ltd.

  CEDAC London Ltd.*

  WS Atkins Consultants Ltd.

  BR Maintenance Ltd.

  Swindon Electronic Service Centre*

  ABB Customer Support Ltd.

  Chart Leacon (Ashford) Depot (Chart Leacon Rail Maintenance Ltd.)*

  ABB Customer Support Ltd.

  Ilford Deport (Ilford Rail Maintenance Ltd.)*

  ABB Customer Support Ltd.

  Doncaster Depot (Doncaster Rail Maintenance Ltd.)*

  ABB Customer Support Ltd.

  Wolverton Depot (Wolverton Hall Maintenance Ltd.)*

  Railcare Ltd.

  Springburn (Glasgow) Depot (Glasgow Rail Maintenance Ltd.)*

  Railcare Ltd.

  Eastleigh Depot (Eastleigh Rail Maintenance Ltd.)*

  Wessex Traincare Ltd.

  BR Central Services

  Baileyfield Switches and Crossings Works*

  VAE Baileyfield Ltd.

  Ditton Timber Treatment Works Quality and Safety Services Ltd.

  The Pheonix Timber Group plc Ingleby (805) Ltd.

  Railways Occupational Health Ltd.

  Occupational Healthcare plc

  Signalling Control (UK) Ltd.

  Westinghouse Brake and Signal Holdings Ltd.

  Interlogic Control Engineering Ltd.

  ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation (Signal) Ltd.

  BR Infrastructure Services

  Scotland Track Renewals Company Ltd.

  Relayfast Ltd.

  Scotland Infrastructure Maintenance Company Ltd.

  Track Action Ltd.

  * BR vendor unit has been involved.

  Railway Incidents
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what incidents have been reported at(a) Congleton, (b) Wilmslow, (c) Litchfield and (d) Tamworth over the last 30 years of passengers alighting from a train short of the platform. [19247]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate has no record since 1984 of any reportable major incidents concerning passengers alighting from trains short of the platforms, at the locations specified. Records before 1984 are no longer available.

  Railways (Short Platforms)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those railway stations where 312
  platforms are shorter than the length of trains stopping at that platform. [19246]

  Mr. Watts
  Details of railway stations where platforms are shorter than the length of the trains stopping there are not held centrally.

  Railways (Staff Assistance)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the text of the instructions given by(a) regional railways and (b) North West Railways in respect of assistance to be given by their staff to inter-city staff on board trains travelling through their stations. [19243]

  Mr. Watts
  This matter is for the train operating companies concerned. I suggest that the hon. Member seeks this information direct from them.

  West Coast Main Line Service
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions in the last 21 days the west coast main line service between Manchester Piccadilly and Euston via Stoke-on-Trent has been(a) delayed and (b) cancelled as a result of points failure; and what were the date and time of the services affected. [19248]

  Mr. Watts
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

SCOTLAND

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by 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. [16021]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is as follows:(a) the Crofters' Commission, new town development corporations, Red Deer Commission, Scottish Arts Council, Scottish Homes, Scottish Legal Aid Board, Scottish Medical Practices Committee, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Sports Council, Scottish tourist board; (b) none, as the Audit Commission does not operate in Scotland. The Accounts Commission for Scotland scrutinises the accounts of the seven Scottish river purification boards; (c) this information is listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1995", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House; (d) none, although all executive NDPBs are expected to comply with all reasonable requests for information from Parliament, users of services and individual citizens; (e) performance indicators are part of the management statement or corporate plan for each NDPB; (f) the citizens charter applies to all public services, including NDPBs. NDPBs serving the public, including those sponsored by my Department, are therefore expected to meet the charter standards.
  313

  National Continence Day
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what support he is offering for National Continence Day on 19 March, and what plans he has to improve the incontinence service in Scotland in 1996–97. [16806]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 28 February 1996]: The Scottish Office is providing funding for the expansion of a telephone helpline facility at the continence resource centre, Southern general hospital NHS trust, Glasgow, for a four-week period including National Continence Day on 19 March. Leaflets and posters advertising the helpline and encouraging sufferers to seek help have been distributed widely, advertisements will be placed in the local press, and a number of events are being organised across the country by local health service professionals, including continence advisers. In addition, we are working with health boards to encourage them to pursue improvements in incontinence services locally.

  Landfill Tax
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the effects the new landfill tax will have on the value of brown-field land; and if he will make a statement. [18278]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has received several representations regarding the possible effect of the landfill tax on remediation schemes for contaminated sites. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General has agreed to consider the feasibility of an exemption for waste resulting from the restoration of historically contaminated land.

  Holyroodhouse
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who currently holds the position of deputy keeper of the palace of Holyroodhouse and the baille and clerk of the Abbey court; what accommodation within the palace is available to them; and what is the cost to public funds. [17898]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: The position of deputy keeper of the palace of Holyroodhouse is currently held by Lord James Douglas-Hamilton. The position of baille and clerk of the Abbey court is currently held by Mr. Patrick Cadell. No accommodation is provided for them within the palace, they are unpaid and there is no cost to public funds arising from their appointments.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 22 February,Official Report, column 288, if he will give details of the accommodation available to the hereditary keeper; what services are provided to him; what duties are undertaken by him; and what is the total cost to public funds arising from the office of hereditary keeper. [17976]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: The accommodation available to the hereditary keeper comprises three reception rooms, two bedrooms and an office. Unless he is occupying the accommodation is connection with his ceremonial duties, the hereditary keeper is required to meet the costs of all services such
  314
  as heating, lighting and water incurred during periods of occupation. The present hereditary keeper hardly ever occupies the accommodation, which is available for use by the royal household whenever required.

  The duties of the hereditary keeper are entirely ceremonial. He receives the Queen and the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland when they visit the palace. There are no costs to public funds arising from the office of hereditary keeper.

  Social Housing Rents
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current average gross weekly rent for(a) council rented accommodation and (b) housing association rented accommodation in Scotland; and what were the figures in 1991. [19166]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 6 March 1996]: The average unrebated weekly rent for local authority accommodation in Scotland in 1995–96 is estimated to be £28.78. The most recent available information on housing association rented accommodation relates to 1994–95, when the average weekly rent was £29.13. The average local authority rent in 1991–92 was £23.12. Figures for housing association rent in 1991–92 on a comparable basis are not available.

  Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if grants made to Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich can be spent within the United Kingdom but outside Scotland; [19118]

  (2) what audits have been conducted in respect of grants made to, and other public expenditure provided for, the work of Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich in the past three years; [19119]

  (3) what inspections have been conducted of community nurseries promoted or provided by Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich in the past three years; [19120]

  (4) what is his Department's responsibility for the grant funding or inspection of the London-based Gaelic medium community nurseries provided by Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich; [19121]

  (5) what (a) public funds and (b) grants are made available to Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich. [19122]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Office grants totalling £61,200 in 1995–96 are made to support the administrative costs associated with Comhairle nan Sgoiltean Araich—the Gaelic Pre-School Council—work in developing Gaelic pre-school groups in Scotland. None of our grants, which are closely monitored and audited annually, are spent outside Scotland. Information on the levels of funding for the individual pre-school groups provided by Government agencies, local authorities, companies, trusts, voluntary organisations, individuals and by the pre-school groups themselves is not held centrally.

  The Children Act 1989 empowers local authorities to inspect nursery and day care premises registered under section 71 of the Act. Authorities must exercise that power at least once every year. Registered community

  315
  nurseries should, therefore, be inspected at least annually. Information about inspections of particular nurseries is not centrally available.

  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications for transfer to prisons in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) the Republic of Ireland were made by Irish prisoners in each of the past 10 years; and how many were successful. [18071]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the information which the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service gave to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) in his letter dated Wednesday 28 February 1996,Official Report, column 619.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March. [17989]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 7 March. [17990]

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

  Far East (Visit)
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the far east. [20056]

  The Prime Minister
  I attended the inaugural Asia-Europe summit meeting in Bangkok on 29 February to 2 March together with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This summit, for the first time, brought together the leaders of Thailand, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, China, the 15 member states of the European Union and the President of the European Commission. I warmly welcomed the opportunity it offered to reinforce the relations between Europe and East Asia, politically and economically two of the world's three most important regions.

  The informal discussions covered a wide range of political and economic issues. The participants agreed on the need to deepen the political dialogue between Asia and Europe, to increase co-operation over arms control, human resource development, environmental protection and the fight against poverty, drugs terrorism and other international crime.

  On economic matters, there was common ground over the benefits of strengthening trade and investment flows between Asia and Europe in both direction. The meeting agreed to work for the further liberalisation of trade and for the success of the World Trade Organisation. It also recognised that intensified exchanges of science and technology, especially in sectors such as agriculture,
  316
  information and technology, energy and transport, were important for extending the economic links between the two regions. Finally, there was agreement on the value of closer people-to-people contacts, especially among younger generations.

  The meeting set in hand an ambitious programme of follow-up work, including preparations for the first ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation in Singapore in December, work on improving conditions for the flow of investment between the two regions, the establishment of a business forum and promotion of reform of the United Nations including the EU initiative on financial reform.

  The meeting accepted the United Kingdom's offer to host the second summit which will be held during our presidency of the EU in the first half of 1998. This is a clear signal of our commitment to developing relations with Asia and our determination to play a leading role in the evolving relationship between the two regions.

  Hong Kong

  During my visit to Hong Kong between 2 and 4 March, I had the opportunity to hear the concerns of a wide range of the Hong Kong community about their future. I was able to reassure them that:

  (i) Britain has a long-term commitment to Hong Kong which will last well beyond the transfer of sovereignty on 1 July 1997;

  (ii) in the event of a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, we would pursue every avenue open to us and mobilise the international community;

  (iii) holders of the Hong Kong special administrative region passport would not be required to obtain visas for visits to Britain after 30 June 1997;

  (iv) we would guarantee admission to Britain for any member of the non-Chinese ethnic minority community with solely British nationality who came under pressure to leave Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty; and

  (v) we would support a private Member's Bill to grant British citizenship to the wives and widows of the ex-service men from Hong Kong who fought for Britain in the war.

  I also had the opportunity to visit several parts of the territory, including the new airport and the extension to the convention and exhibition centre, where development is being pursued to ensure Hong Kong's continuing success.

  Korea

  Korea is an important trading partner: our exports increased by 44 per cent. in 1995 to more than £1.5 billion, and we have attracted more than 40 per cent. of all Korean inward investment in Europe. The prospects for further growth in these areas are good.

  I had a meeting with President Kim Young Sam, our third in 12 months, at which we discussed ways to increase the co-operation between our countries, particularly in trade and investment. I also met the leaders of the major Korean conglomerates. I encouraged them to consider further inward investment here by assuring them of the major benefits of doing so. During my visit, three new Korean investments worth £2.5 million were announced, bringing the number of Korean companies in the UK to 19. Four contracts were signed by British companies for joint ventures valued at £90 million, including a co-operation agreement between British

  317
  Nuclear Fuels Ltd. and Hanjung for the building of spent fuel storage casks in a market expected to grow from £35 million to £2 billion.

  Princess of Wales
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions or communications Her Majesty's Government have had since the beginning of the current year with the Governments of those other Commonwealth countries whose Head of State is Her Majesty the Queen, about the constitutional future and status of Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales. [18883]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: None.

  Duchy of Cornwall (Profits)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if the income and profits of the Duchy of Cornwall are private and personal to the Prince of Wales. [18886]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The capital assets of the Duchy of Cornwall are inalienable, and the income from capital disposals must be reinvested in new capital assets. The Prince of Wales is personally entitled to the net income from the revenue account of the Duchy of Cornwall, from which he meets both public and private expenditure for himself, the Princess and their family.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister at what time or stage on 28 February he was advised that Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales was issuing a statement announcing her intention to divorce His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. [18882]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I was informed of the statement after it was issued.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what provisions exist for the Princess of Wales to renounce the rank and the title of Her Royal Highness. [18881]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The use of the style lies ultimately in the Queen's gift, although the wishes of the princess would be taken into consideration.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what future funding arrangements from public funds are being made to facilitate HRH the Princess of Wales continuing her public duties subsequent to divorce. [18877]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: Matters relating to the divorce of the Prince and Princess of Wales and the princess's future role are under discussion.

  Civil Servants (Conduct)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if it is his policy that civil servants criticised in the Scott report shall be disciplined. [19282]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 6 March, Official Report, column 252.
  318

  EU Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the EU directives which have been gold plated when transcribed into United Kingdom law in the past five years. [18640]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government's policy is not to add unnecessary burdens on business when implementing EC directives in the UK. Departments keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy.

  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister hen he expects to issue a revised version of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". [18622]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: I will revise and reissue "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" as and when appropriate.

  Civil Servants (Company Directors)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister 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 annual remuneration was (i) £1 to £5,000, (ii) £5,000 to £10,000 and (c) above £10,000. [18146]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 March 1996: For these purposes, my office forms part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 6 March, Official Report, columns 250–51.

HEALTH

  Dental Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been deregistered from their dentist since 1992 in each family health services authority area; and if he will make a statement. [17592]

  Mr. Malone
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  GP Fundholders
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues to general practitioner fundholders on the appropriate use of savings. [17936]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance on the use of fundholder savings is set out in HSG(95)46, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were, in each of the last five years(a) the total losses of fundholders, (b) the total savings and (c) the total net savings. [17935]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about fundholder efficiency savings and budget overspends is shown in the table. Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.
  319

  Efficiency savings:

  Budget overspends:

  Year

  £ million

  Per cent. of budgets set

  £ million

  Per cent. of budgets set

  1991–92

  15

  3.7

  2

  0.6

  1992–93

  28

  3.5

  10

  1.2

  1993–94

  64

  3.5

  13

  0.7

  Source: Regional offices.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made in each year of the net worth of general practitioners fundholders' assets. [19499]

  Mr. Malone
  None. All general practitioners, whether fundholding or not, are independent contractors to the national health service. Information is not therefore available about their assets.

  "Patients not Paper"
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and which, health service bodies have so far identified board level members with responsibility for implementing the recommendations of "Patients not Paper"; and what progress has been reported by them. [18795]

  Mr. Malone
  Each family health services authority in England and Wales has appointed a board level person responsible for implementing the recommendations of "Patients not Paper". In addition, all eight regional offices have appointed a lead individual responsible for co-ordinating the implementation of "Patients not Paper" throughout their region. Good progress towards introducing the recommendations on schedule has been reported from all regions. The key date for introduction of new forms is 1 July 1996.

  NHS Medical Staff
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of(a) full-time and (b) part-time NHS medical staff in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994 and (iii) 1995. [18803]

  Mr. Malone
  Information for hospital and community health services doctors is available in "Hospital Medical Staff England Tables" for 1993 and 1994, and from "Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services Medical Staff England Tables" for 1993 and 1994.

  Figures for general practitioners are available in "General Medical Services Statistics for England and Wales" 1993 and 1994.

  Information for 1995 is not yet available.

  Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons salaries are not paid to chairmen of continuing health care review panels. [18821]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is not normal practice to pay salaries for appointments of this kind, but chairmen are entitled to receive reasonable expenses.
  320
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many, and which, health authorities are intending to use the Barthel index to determine eligibility for NHS continuing in-patient care from April 1996; and what score on the index is being used as the basis for eligibility in respect of each one. [19807]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally; health authority policies and eligibility criteria are currently in the process of being finalised for operation from 1 April.

  Tomlinson Report
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons his Department did not implement the recommendation contained in paragraph 42 of the Tomlinson report. [18937]

  Mr. Malone
  After consultation with the profession, we introduced a package of work force flexibilities in the London initiative zone in September 1995. Together with premises' flexibilities and their general medical services cash-limited allocations, this will enable health authorities and the profession locally to work together to improve services for patients.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals in(a) West Yorkshire and (b) Leeds are paying private sector hospitals to treat NHS patients; if he will list the hospitals; and what are the costs involved. [18962]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact chairmen of NHS trusts in West Yorkshire for details.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authorities are applying the same capital asset rules to means testing for domiciliary care and for residential care; and if he will publish a list of those authorities. [18965]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of(a) GPs and (b) GP vacancies in each health authority area in England. [19256]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information will be placed in the Library. Information on general practitioner vacancies is not available centrally.

  NHS Audits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will hold centrally information on the proportion of NHS audit activity devoted to probity audits; and if he will make a statement. [19347]

  Mr. Horam
  No. The examination of probity forms one part of the work carried out by internal and external auditors, and cannot readily be quantified.
  321

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 13 February,Official Report, column 798, what is the current average time that patients have to wait before being seen when attending the accident and emergency department at the Whittington Hospital NHS trust. [19609]

  Mr. Malone
  At present, 95 per cent. of patients are seen within five minutes for triage assessment. The average waiting time to see a doctor in January 1996 was 65 minutes. Approximately 45 per cent. of patients were seen by a doctor within 30 minutes, 58 per cent. within 60 minutes, 78 per cent. within 120 minutes and 90 per cent. within 180 minutes. Children and patients needing urgent treatment are always given priority.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the Licensing Authority expects to receive further data on myocardial infarction and third generation oral contraceptives; [19189]

  (2) whether data on myocardial infarction risk from third generation oral contraceptives were made available to members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995; and from which studies that data were derived; [19186]

  (3) if he will publish the odds ratios relating to myocardial infarction and third generation oral contraceptives which were made available from the World Health Organisation and Spitzer studies to the Medicines Control Agency prior to the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995. [19187]

  Mr. Malone
  Preliminary data on myocardial infarction from the World Health Organisation case control study were made available to the Committee on Safety on Medicines on 13 October 1995. These data remain unpublished and were provided to the Medicines Control Agency in confidence. Limited data on myocardial infarction from the general practice research database were also available to the committee. Further data from the GPRD study and the findings of the transnational study have since become available, and have been published in the medical literature. Further epidemiological data on myocardial infarction are expected, but the time frame for their availability is currently unclear.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial contribution the Licensing Authority made to the costs of distributing the letter dated 26 October 1995 from the Family Planning Association which contained advice on the prescribing of combined oral contraceptives. [19188]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency covered the costs of printing and distribution of the letter to relevant health professionals.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legal proceedings have been instituted against(a) the Licensing Authority, (b) the Medicines Control Agency, (c) Medicines Control Agency staff and (d) the
  322
  Committee on Safety of Medicines in connection with the recent advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines on third generation oral contraceptives. [19192]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date Ministers in his Department were informed of potential safety concerns regarding third generation oral contraceptives. [19183]

  Mr. Malone
  Ministers were informed of the preliminary findings of the World Health Organisation's case control study on 14 July 1995.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to monitor the effects on public health of the dissemination of the advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines relating to third generation oral contraceptives. [19185]

  Mr. Malone
  Information from a variety of sources is being monitored, including data on the occurrence of cardiovascular diseases, pregnancy and abortion.

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department made of the arithmetical accuracy of the tables made available by Professor Spitzer on 9 October 1995. [19191]

  Mr. Malone
  The tables provided by Professor Spitzer were assessed by experts on the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards are in place to ensure that the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines is independent. [19190]

  Mr. Malone
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines is an independent body of drug safety experts. Following consultation with appropriate organisations and on the recommendation of the Medicines Commission, its members are appointed by the United Kingdom Health Ministers—the Licensing Authority.

  Members do not represent organisations, but contribute by their individual expertise and judgment to the advice given by the committee to the licensing authority. In addition, members are required to follow a code of practice on relations with the pharmaceutical industry and to declare their interests which are published annually.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many resignations have been received from staff of(a) the Medicines Control Agency and (b) the Committee on Safety of Medicines since 1 October 1995. [19184]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency has received six resignations since 1 October 1995; while the Committee on Safety of Medicines has received none.

  Chelsea and Westminster NHS Trust
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received about the closure of the B 12 unit at the Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust; and if he will make a statement; [19193]
  323
  (2) what representations he has received on the need for an independent inquiry into the closure of the B 12 unit at the Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust; and if he will make a statement; [19195]

  (3) what involvement his Department had in the decision to close the B12 unit at the Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust; [19194]

  (4) what representations he has received on, and what assessment he has made of, the health risks faced by children whose treatment has been interrupted as a result of the closure of the B12 unit at the Chelsea and Westminster NHS trust; and if he will make a statement. [19196]

  Mr. Horam
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received several representations on the future of the vitamin B 2 unit at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital. The future inclusion of the vitamin B 12 unit into the services provided by the Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare national health service trust is a matter for the trust and the Charing Cross and Westminster medical school.

  Laparoscopic Surgery
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when an independent inquiry into an allegation of clinical negligence or misconduct involving the use of laparoscopic surgical techniques in a case of uterine cancer was last carried out in respect of the Northern and Yorkshire health region; by whom that inquiry was carried out; and at what cost. [19234]

  Mr. Horam
  Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority carried out an inquiry into an allegation about the use of laparoscopic surgical techniques in a case of uterine cancer in the second half of 1995. The hon. Member may wish to contact John Greetham CBE, chairman of the authority, for further details.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the use of laparoscopic surgical techniques for hysterectomy in the case of uterine cancer requires ethics committee approval. [19236]

  Mr. Horam
  Laparoscopic surgical techniques require local research ethics committee approval only if carried out as part of a research project.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he is preparing guidelines as to when laparoscopic surgical techniques may be used for hysterectomy in the case of uterine cancer; [19237]

  (2) what guidelines exist covering the circumstances under which laparoscopic surgical techniques of hysterectomy may be used in the case of uterine cancer. [19238]

  Mr. Horam
  No guidelines exist covering specifically the circumstances under which laparoscopic surgical techniques of hysterectomy may be used in the case of uterine cancer. The development, publication and maintenance of guidelines for the clinical management of various groups of illnesses are the responsibility of the medical, nursing, dental and other clinicians and their professional bodies.
  324

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues as to the professional qualifications and usual place of work of individuals commissioned by regional health authorities to look into alleged cases of clinical negligence. [19235]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no formal guidance for regional health authorities that deals specifically with the investigation of alleged cases of clinical negligence.

  Regional medical officers are responsible for arranging for two independent consultants to conduct the third stage of the current hospital clinical complaints procedure, called independent professional review. Existing guidance is contained in paragraph 27 of annexe B to health circular HC(88)37, copies of which will be placed in the Library. This states that the consultants should be in active practice in the appropriate speciality or specialties. They should be nominated by the joint consultants committee, and at least one should be a doctor working in a comparable hospital in a different region from that which is setting up the independent professional review.

  A new national health service complaints system will be introduced from April 1996, in which there will no longer be separate procedures for dealing with clinical complaints.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a quarterly analysis of the number of operations cancelled in each region since figures have been published. [19497]

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library figures by(a) district health authority and (b) regional health authority, of the number of operations cancelled on the day of, or the day after, admission to hospital and the number of those patients not readmitted within a month for (i) the second and (ii) the third quarter of 1995–96. [19471]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service performs over 5 million operations annually. Fewer than 50,000 or less than 0.01 per cent. were cancelled in 1994–95 and many of these would have been unavoidable.

  The available information relates to the number of operations cancelled for non-medical reasons on the day patients are due to arrive or after arrival in hospital. This will be placed in the Library.

  Trust Managers (Pay Increases)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further advice he intends to issue to trusts regarding the appropriate level of pay increases to general and senior managers beyond that contained in HSG(961); and what monitoring he proposes to undertake. [19493]

  Mr. Malone
  None. These are matters for local determination following extant guidance and I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 13 February,Official Report, column 559.
  325

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a list of the professions of those(a) nominated and (b) appointed to serve as non-executives on the newly merged health authorities. [19498]

  Mr. Malone
  A list of all non-executive appointments together with professions of appointees to national health service authorities and trusts will be published in the summer of 1996.

  Hospital Closures
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistics his Department collects on hospital department closures. [19492]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department does not routinely collect information on hospital department closures. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) on 28 February,Official Report, column 569.

DEFENCE

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Cummings
  To as the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each of the past five years Ministers in his Department have passed(a) hon. Members' letters and (b) hon. Members' questions to agencies for response; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of letters and questions received. [19423]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  For parliamentary questions, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on 14 February 1996,Official Report, column 609.

  Information on the number of hon. Members' letters passed to defence agencies to reply is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Bills (Payment)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average time taken by his Department in the payment of commercial bills in each year since 1993; and what are his Department's policies for the payment of commercial bills for contracts awarded to small companies. [19607]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Bills Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from T. R. Thurgate to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 8 March 1996:

  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average time taken by his Department in the payment of commercial bills in each year since 1993; and what are his Department's policies for the payment of commercial bills for contracts awarded to small companies. As this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Defence Bills Agency I have been asked to reply.

  The statistics which are readily available go back to April 1993. During this time 99.99% of bills have been paid within 30 days of presentation of a valid bill. The Defence Bills Agency also measures
  326
  performance against a higher departmental standard of payment within 11 days of receipt of a valid bill. We achieved the 1993/94 target of 96%, the 94/95 target of 97%, and are on course to achieve the 97% target for 95/96.

  All new MOD contractors receive a 'Prompt Payment Guide' from the Defence Bills Agency, I have enclosed a copy for you. This booklet provides guidance on MOD payment procedures to help contractors submit bills correctly and therefore receive prompt payment.

  Equipment Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the letter sent by him to defence industry firms concerning Government policy on exports of defence equipment to Iran in(a) 1984 and (b) 1985. [18539]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We are aware of one letter sent by the Ministry of Defence to a UK defence manufacturer in 1985 which referred to new policy guidelines in relation to exports to Iran and Iraq. Very few papers exist from the two years in question and it is possible that other letters were sent by the Ministry of Defence at the time.

  Chechnya
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current policy on the sale of(a) aircraft and (b) other armaments to Chechnya; and if he will make a statement. [18270]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We do not sell defence equipment to Chechnya, which is internationally recognised as part of the Russian Federation.

  Business Appointment Rules
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries have been made with John Laing International to establish whether former officials or officers have failed to seek approval under the business appointments rules. [18961]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None. There has been no reason to write to the company about former MOD employees.

  Air Vice-Marshal Howard
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 318, when Air Vice-Marshal Howard retired; when he took up a business appointment with Tripod Engineering; and how long that appointment lasted. [19045]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the information contained in section D2 of the Scott report.

  Computers
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all cases since 1987 where his Department has bought computer capacity from(a) other Departments and (b) the private sector, giving the value of each contract and the name of the private sector contractors. [19460]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No central record is held of the extent to which computer capacity might have been brought from other Departments. Computer capacity has been
  327
  bought from many private sector sources, but again no central record is held. In both cases, information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. David Hart
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is Mr. David Hart's current job description within his Department; and what other job description he has held since assisting his Department. [19897]

  Mr. Portillo
  Mr. Hart has agreed to assist me with advice on any matter which I decide to refer to him. He is also free to raise matters with me. He had a similar arrangement with my predecessor.

  Franco-German Armaments Agency
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which defence equipment projects for his Department he has identified as being suitable for management by the enlarged Franco-German Armaments Agency to include the United Kingdom. [19126]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The UK is considering a number of possible projects for management by the Franco-German organisation in the event of UK entry.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the relationship between the procurement executive of his Department and the Franco-German Armaments Agency following British participation in this agency. [19124]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The UK is currently discussing with France and Germany the implications of possible participation in the Franco-German armaments organisation. No decisions have been made on the organisation's policies and operating procedures.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the process of funding and financial accountability for defence equipment destined for his Department and managed by the Franco-German Armaments Agency enlarged to include the United Kingdom. [19125]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In the event of UK involvement in the Franco-German organisation, detailed management arrangements for collaborative projects will be determined before any commitment. The UK will not relax her standards of monitoring and control.

  Multi-role Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to maintain a British capability to design, develop and build military vehicles in his evaluation of the options to meet the Army's multi-role armoured vehicle requirement. [19123]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We are discussing with France and Germany possible UK participation in the first stage of a collaborative venture to meet part of the UK's requirement for a multi-role armoured vehicle. The implications and opportunities for UK industry are an important factor in these discussions.
  328

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department will make an assessment of the potential environmental after-effects of the Sea Empress oil spillage on the north Devon coastline and Lundy island and of the steps that need to be taken to manage and mitigate these effects. [17718]

  Mr. Baldry
  Our initial survey work suggests that there is no cause for concern of the effects of the Sea Empress oil spillage on the fisheries and wider marine environment along the north Devon coastline and Lundy island. We shall continue to monitor the environmental effects of oil spillage for as long as is necessary to be sure that this continues to be the case.

  Oil Spillage Dispersants
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the level of oestrogen-mimicking chemicals in dispersants used to combat oil spillages; what assessment he has made of the long-term effects; and if he will make a statement.[17983]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: Oestrogen-mimicking chemicals are not components of any oil dispersant product approved by the Department for combating oil spilt in United Kingdom waters.

  Environmental Objectives
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent measures his Department has taken to implement regulation 2078 in the United Kingdom, in respect of setting clear environmental objectives on(a) rural employment, (b) biodiversity, (c) pollution and (d) soil erosion; what measures have been taken in other EU member states; and if he will make a statement. [18613]

  Mr. Boswell
  The aim of Council regulation 2078/92—the "agri-environment regulation"—is to promote farming practices which are compatible with protection of the environment and maintenance of the countryside. It requires all EU member states to introduce programmes of environmental incentive schemes for farmers which reflect their own environmental circumstances and priorities.

  The agri-environment regulation has been implemented in England by expanding the existing environmentally sensitive areas and nitrate sensitive areas schemes and by introducing a range of new incentive schemes addressing major environmental priorities such as creation of wildlife habitats, promotion of organic farming, conservation of heather moorland and access. We have also recently completed public consultation on proposals for the expansion and development of the countryside stewardship scheme when it transfers to MAFF from the Countryside Commission at the end of the month.

  One of the main aims of our agri-environment programme is to protect and enhance biodiversity, and many of the schemes are contributing towards the Government's objectives under the biodiversity action plan. The schemes also address concerns over pollution by controlling or prohibiting inputs of fertilisers and

  329
  pesticides, and concerns over soil erosion through measures such as the reversion of arable land to grassland. The issue of rural employment falls outside the scope of regulation 2078/92; the Government's policy in this area is set out in the rural White Paper.

  As indicated in the rural White Paper, we have now set up a national agri-environment steering group specifically to advise Ministers on the objectives, targeting, development and monitoring of agri-environment schemes. We have also set up a new national forum, which meets for the first time on 25 March, to allow a wide range of interested bodies the opportunity to feed in their own ideas on these issues.

  Fishing Vessels (Ownership)
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many boats on the United Kingdom fishing vessel register are in foreign ownership; and, of these, how many were registered(a) while in such ownership and (b) as a result of the vessels being sold by United Kingdom owners to foreign interests. [18960]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. David Harris, dated 7 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about vessels on the UK Fishing Vessel Register which are in foreign ownership.

  When the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Ships) Regulations 1992 came into force in March 1994, the information you asked for ceased to be available. It is still possible to identify the nationality of individual owners but many fishing vessels are owned by companies and the nationality of the shareholders of these companies cannot be ascertained.

  Before March 1994, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 provided that corporate owners of fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom had to be made up mainly of qualified shareholders. A company had therefore to complete a declaration that its shareholding complied with the Act. After the 1993 regulations came into force, the only requirement for eligibility in respect of companies is that they be incorporated in a member state of the European Economic Area and have a place of business in the UK. As a result of this change, it is no longer necessary to know the nationality of the shareholders and no such information is now collected.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU Directives
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Community directives were introduced by him into the law of the Untied Kingdom in 1995. [18292]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Twelve Community directives—six Council/Council and Parliament directives and six Commission directives—were introduced as DTI measures into the law of the United Kingdom, all by way of statutory instrument, in 1995.

  Arms Sale Guarantees
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 January 1996,Official Report, column 403, if he will indicate, without revealing
  330
  the contracts concerned, the four largest sums put up by Her Majesty's Government as a financial guarantee or collateral in respect of securing an arms deal. [15979]

  Mr. Lang
  The four largest guarantees issued by ECGD in respect of defence equipment sales were as follows:

  Year guarantee issued

  ECGD liability £ Million

  1993–94

  750

  1988–89

  450

  1992–93

  427

  1985–86

  378

  Overseas Exhibitions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answers of 24 January,Official Report, columns 253–56, (1) which sections of the Data Protection Act 1984 preclude release of information relating to individual companies; [17811]

  (2) which sections of the Data Protection Act 1984 preclude release of information relating to individual companies. [17395]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 26 February 1996]: Regrettably, the information on which my answer of the 24 January was based was incomplete and arose from a misunderstanding which has now been corrected. Further advice indicates that the provisions of the Data Protection Act are not relevant to information about exhibitors supported by the Department at overseas trade fairs. This information is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those countries his Department currently holds with EDS, indicating for each the(a) date of inception, (b) value and (c) duration. [17456]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  We have no current contracts with EDS let centrally. I have asked the chief executives of the Department's executive agencies to reply separately to this question.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Ms Angela Eagle, dated 7 March 1996:

  In the absence of Peter Joyce the Chief Executive I am responding on behalf of this Agency to your Parliamentary Written Question 95/1321 addressed to the President of the Board of Trade.

  The Insolvency Service does not currently hold any contracts with EDS.

  Letter from J. C. Octon to Ms Angela Eagle, dated 7 March 1996:

  In the absence of the Comptroller General on official business, I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question about contracts with EDS. I can confirm that the Office currently has no contracts with that company.
  331
  Letter from Adrian Wilson to Ms Angela Eagle, dated 7 March 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question: 95/1321 about contracts currently held with Electronic Data Systems.

  LGC does not currently hold any contracts with Electronic Data Systems.

  Letter from Seton Bennett to Ms Angela Eagle, dated 29 February 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about contracts with EDS. This Agency holds no contract with the said company.

  Letter from David Durham to Ms Angela Eagle, dated 29 February 1996:

  You asked the President of the Board of Trade for information on contracts his Department currently holds with EDS regarding the date of inception, value and duration.

  For Companies House the answer is none.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Ms Angela Eagle, dated 7 March 1996:

  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about contracts with EDS. I can confirm that the Radiocommunications Agency does not currently hold any contracts with EDS.

  Scott Report
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on changes instituted in the Export Control Organisation since events covered by Sir Richard Scott in his report took place. [18555]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: The changes instituted in the Export Control Organisation since events covered by Sir Richard Scott in his report took place were set out in a press notice issued by my Department on 15 February 1996.

  The Government are currently considering Sir Richard Scott's proposals and will publish a consultation paper in due course.

  Post Office
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies have been undertaken by his Department since 1 January 1995 into the effectiveness of Post Office distribution; and what were the results. [18817]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No specific studies into the effectiveness of Post Office distribution have been undertaken by my Department since 1 January 1995 as this is an operational matter for the Post Office. Quarterly and annual quality of service statistics obtained by independent survey have for many years been published for Royal Mail. These statistics show the percentage of first and second class mail delivered respectively within Royal Mail's target of the next working day and three working days. The efficiency study of the Post Office commissioned from KPMG in 1995 covered all main areas of the Post Office's operations. Its findings have been used to inform discussion and decision on a range of issues.
  332
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of the performance review of the Post Office commissioned from the consultants KPMG; when it was completed; how it has been used; and if it will be published. [18968]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The performance review of the Post Office commissioned from KPMG was completed on 31 August 1995 and has been used to inform discussion and decisions on a range of issues. These include in particular the setting of the Post Office external financing limits in last November's Budget, and consideration of the financial and efficiency targets which are to be set for Royal Mail, Post Office Counters and Parcelforce for the financial years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99. The cost of work undertaken by individual contractors is commercially confidential. The contents of the report are confidential between the Government, their advisers and the Post Office board.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what will be the Government's target for real unit cost reduction for Royal Mail and Post Office Counters for the financial years(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1988–99; [18970]

  (2) what will be the Government's target for the return on capital employed in Royal Mail, Parcelforce and Post Office Counters for the financial years (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [18969]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The new financial and efficiency targets for Royal Mail, Post Office Counters and Parcelforce for the financial years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 will be published when final decisions on them have been taken.

  Bankruptcies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were declared bankrupt in each year since 1990 for debts up to(a) £50,000, (b) £500,000 (c) £6 million and (d) over £6 million. [19091]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of bankruptcy orders made in England and Wales since 1990 is as follows:

  Number

  1990

  12,058

  1991

  22,632

  1993

  31,016

  1994

  25,634

  1995

  21,933

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

  Merseyside Special Investment Fund
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's role in the establishment of the Merseyside special investment fund; which other organisations are involved in its establishment; and on what date its operations will commence. [18840]
  333
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The Department has worked with a range of private and public organisations to ensure that the proposed fund will complement existing provision of finance to small and medium-sized enterprises and will operate according to Government and European Commission financial requirements.

  The Department and MSIF are currently considering with the European Commission their concerns about European regional development fund grant to the fund.

  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the total budget of the Merseyside special investment fund; what will be the total level of Government financial support; and what will be the fund's other sources of finance. [18841]

  Mr. Taylor
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The Department is considering an application from the Merseyside special investment fund for £16.1 million of European regional development fund grant towards its overall budget of £52.6 million. Other funding will primarily come from private sector contributions and income from companies supported by the fund.

  Trade and Research Associations
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what amount of grant is paid each year to the trade associations representing the(a) paper, (b) leather, (c) shoe, (d) furniture, (e) timber and (f) textiles industries; [18378]

  (2) what amount of grant is paid each year to the research associations related to the (a) paper, (b) leather, (c) shoe, (d) furniture, (e) timber and (f) textiles industries. [18379]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: None of these organisations receives any automatic grant annually from the Department. However, some receive discretionary grants to support specific competitiveness or export activities in their sectors. In 1994–95 the totals of such grants paid were as follows:

  Sector

  Competitiveness support

  Export support £ million

  Paper

  0.360

  —

  Leather

  0.020

  0.214

  Footwear

  0.328

  0.057

  Furniture

  0.109

  0.862

  Timber/Textiles

  —

  —

  Clothing

  0.348

  2.084

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will initiate discussions with National Power on the proposed import of orimulsion. [19252]

  Mr. Page
  No. The choice of fuel to be used in a power station is a commercial matter for the company concerned subject to the operation of the station being able to satisfy the requirements of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.
  334

  Mid Kent Holdings
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to enforce the statutory undertaking given to him by General Utilities not to enter into any arrangement with an associated person which may result in his joint holdings in Mid Kent Holdings plc exceeding 19.5 per cent. [19515]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Under section 88 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 the Director General of Fair Trading has a duty to give advice to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade if it appears to him that a statutory undertaking has not been or is not being fulfilled. He also has a duty to advise where it appears to him that a person can be released from an undertaking or that the undertaking needs to be varied or superseded. The President of the Board of Trade will wish to consider carefully any advice he may receive from the Director General of Fair Trading in relation to the statutory undertakings given by General Utilities plc in March 1991 concerning the acquisition of shares in Mid Kent Holdings plc.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [18642]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  This information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Wages
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current average male wage. [17635]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The "New Earnings Survey" (1995) estimates that the average gross weekly earnings for men on full-time adult rates is £374.60 per week.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from her Department and its agencies in each of the past five years, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [19043]

  Mr. Sproat
  Since it was established in April 1992, my Department has neither lost nor had stolen any items of equipment or furniture. Three items of IT material have been lost, none of which was valued over £5,000.

  The Historic Royal Palaces agency has suffered no theft or other loss of any item of furniture, equipment or IT material.

  The Royal Parks agency lost four small non-IT items in 1995, the total value of those items being £513.
  335

  Sport (London)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to make a decision in respect of London as an international city of sport as defined by the Sports Council. [18906]

  Mr. Sproat
  Decisions on all applications for designation under the Sports Council's city of sport programme are entirely a matter for the Sports Council. However, I understand that the Sports Council is working closely with the London Sports Co-ordinating Committee which is developing an application.

  Television Licence Fee
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to make an announcement on the proposals from the BBC for the introduction of a weekly cash instalment scheme for the payment of a television licence fee. [18911]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have given approval in principle to a BBC proposal to introduce a weekly cash instalment scheme for payment of the television licence fee. Regulations will have to drafted, and we will make an announcement when these are laid before the House. The BBC needs to make the necessary arrangements to implement the scheme, which it hopes to be in a position to do this summer.

  BBC
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the new BBC charter and agreement will come into effect. [20251]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have considered the views of right hon. and hon. Members in the debate on 15 February.Official Report, columns 1172–1234, and those expressed in another place. We have considered whether there is substantial support for significant changes to be made to the draft royal charter or the agreement which was approved by this House. We have concluded that no such changes are warranted.

  Many of the points raised related to specific aspects of the BBC's services. The new charter and agreement set out explicitly the broad standards we expect of the BBC. It is for the BBC to give more specific undertakings, after consulting its audiences, in its statement of pledges.

  Concern was voiced that the BBC should reflect the needs of audiences throughout the UK. The new charter and agreement establish a clear framework to ensure that programme makers in all parts of the country make a proper contribution to the BBC's output, and that the BBC stays closely in touch with the needs and opinions of all viewers and listeners. The statement of pledges will underpin these commitments.

  We have made explicit the independence of the BBC. Alongside this, the BBC must be accountable to the public. We have made it clear that the responsibility for ensuring the BBC fulfils its obligations rests with the board of governors.

  The policies reflected in the draft charter and agreement will secure the future of the BBC for the next 10 years and allow it to flourish, at home and abroad, in its public services and its commercial enterprises, under its new
  336
  chairman, Sir Christopher Bland. I am therefore making a representation to Her Majesty that the new charter now be granted to the BBC. Subject to Her Majesty's approval, I expect the new royal charter and agreement to come into force on I May 1996.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Treasury Solicitor's Office (Computer Disc Theft)
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1996,Official Report, column 695, what was the relationship between the two people who were the subject of the investigation by the Metropolitan police. [19358]

  The Solicitor-General
  Brother and sister.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1996,Official Report, column 695, what factors underlay the decision that it was not in the public interest to prosecute the woman against whom the Metropolitan police had established sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction. [19359]

  The Solicitor-General
  In order to ensure fair and nationally consistent decisions on prosecutions, the Crown Prosecution Service follows the guidance set out in the code for Crown prosecutors. Copies of the code, which is issued under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, are available in the Library of the House. Section 6 of the code deals with the factors commonly taken into account in determining where the public interest lies. Those factors were applied in this case.

  Public Interest Immunity
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions the public interest has been evoked in each of the last three years to protect from prosecution persons against whom the Metropolitan police had established sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction for(a) alleged theft and (b) blackmail. [19357]

  The Solicitor-General
  Following charge, or in cases where advice is sought, it is the Crown Prosecution Service which decides whether a prosecution should proceed or continue. While the service maintains detailed statistics on the cases, it deals with it does not break those figures down either by police force or by type of offence. In order to determine the number of cases which were not prosecuted on public interest grounds it would be necessary to check each file individually. This could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Restraint and Confiscation Orders
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Attorney-General how many restraint and confiscation orders have been obtained in each of the last three years; and for what amounts. [17142]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have been asked to reply.
  337
  Information about the number of "restraint orders" made by the High Court is not collected centrally by my Department.

  Information about the number of confiscation orders made by courts in England and Wales is given in the table.

  Offenders ordered to pay confiscation orders under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988 by amount and type of court 1992–94

  England and Wales

  Legislation/court/amount

  1992

  1993

  1994

  DRUG TRAFFICKING OFFENCES ACT 1986

  Crown Court

  Orders made

  Under £1,000

  675

  712

  921

  £1,000 and under £3,000

  164

  126

  160

  £3,000 and under £10,000

  82

  78

  97

  £10,000 and under £30,000

  43

  37

  29

  £30,000 and under £100,000

  22

  15

  22

  £100,000 and under £300,000

  13

  7

  9

  £300,000 and under £1 million

  1

  6

  8

  £1 million and over

  2

  2

  2

  Total

  1,002

  983

  1,248

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1988

  Magistrates' Court

  Orders made

  £10,000 and under £30,000

  —

  —

  1

  £30,000 and under £100,000

  —

  —

  —

  £100,000 and under £300,000

  —

  —

  —

  £300,000 and under £1 million

  —

  —

  —

  £1 million and over

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  —

  —

  1

  Crown Court

  Orders made

  £10,000 and under £30,000

  1

  7

  5

  £30,000 and under £100,000

  —

  3

  4

  £100,000 and under £300,000

  2

  3

  1

  £300,000 and under £1 million

  —

  2

  1

  £1 million and over

  —

  —

  1

  Total

  3

  15

  12

  The quality of Confiscation Order data recorded under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 Part VI is suspect as it is often wrongly recorded.

TREASURY

  Single European Currency
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake a study of the implications of the length of time taken from the decision to introduce decimalisation to its introduction for the introduction of a single currency. [17628]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  If we were to take part in a single currency in 1999, we would be committed to the timetable agreed by the European Council in Madrid in December 1995.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of a single European currency on Government spending in Britain. [17637]
  338
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is not immediately obvious that there need be any effects on Government spending, but it is too early to assess the possible impact of a single currency. A full assessment of the costs and benefits will be carried out nearer the time, when the facts are known.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Merchant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with business leaders regarding the United Kingdom's economic competitiveness. [17629]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend frequently meets business leaders where a wide range of topics, including our improving economic competitiveness, are discussed.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what statistics are retained by his Department on matters relating to trade. [17630]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Central Statistical Office publishes a large number of statistics covering a wide range of trade data.

  European Currency Values
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he had made of the impact of the current value of the German mark and the French franc on the British economy; and if he will make a statement. [17631]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Sterling's value against the German mark and French franc are just two of many factors which influence the British economy. But we do know that the United Kingdom ran a visible trade surplus with EC countries in December for only the third time since monthly records began in 1988.

  Export Credits Guarantee Requests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what records he keeps in respect of Treasury decisions on export credits guarantee requests. [17632]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  A record of exchanges between Ministers, minutes of meetings and correspondence between officials is kept for at least 10 years.

  Mis-selling of Pensions
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he plans regarding the mis-selling of pensions. [17633]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government continue to support the initiative of the Securities and Investments Board, announced in October 1994, to require reviews of certain personal pension cases. A recent example is the inclusion in the current Finance Bill of provisions to exempt compensation payments from tax.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of Government borrowing in the next financial year. [17634]
  339
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent estimate he has made of the level of Government borrowing in the next financial year. [17639]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Budget forecast of the public sector borrowing requirement for 1996–97 was £22.5 billion.

  Drug Control Policy
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the Customs and Excise Department's drug control policy. [17636]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The reduction of supplies of drugs from abroad is a key part of the Government's strategy for tackling drug misuse, and maintaining the anti-smuggling enforcement effort is a top priority for customs. Customs' drug control policy focuses on:

  the prevention and detection of illegal importation and exportation of controlled drugs;

  the investigation of organisations and individuals engaged in international drugs smuggling;

  the prosecution of drug smugglers; and

  the identification to the courts for possible forfeiture of any proceeds of drugs smuggling.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has had about VAT on domestic fuel. [17638]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have received a number of such representations from Members and direct from the public.

  Budget (Impact on Women)
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements exist within his Department to assess the impact of his Budget on women. [17640]

  Mr. Jack
  The impact of the Budget on all groups is considered very carefully.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the income from the tax on waste to landfill sites in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997-–98; and if he will make a statement. [17641]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The landfill tax is expected to raise £110 million in 1996–97 and £450 million in 1997–98.

  Tax Evasion
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount of revenue lost through tax evasion last year. [17642]

  Mr. Jack
  There is no reliable way of estimating the amount of tax evaded annually. But in each of the last four tax years, the Inland Revenue has brought into charge approximately £1.5 billion from its counter-evasion work.
  340

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people receive conditional exemption from inheritance tax because they allow the public access to their land. [17643]

  Mr. Jack
  As conditionally exempt property may be owned jointly by several persons or held in trust, information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, in the United Kingdom, there have been 189 designations of land for conditional exemption purposes, and 171 designations of historic buildings. Some designations of the buildings will have extended to the surrounding land, and some of the buildings will have been designated for the purposes of the tax provisions on maintenance funds rather than for conditional exemption of the buildings themselves.

  Mortgage Interest Rates
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level of mortgage interest rates for the forthcoming year. [17644]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  It is a long-standing practice not to publish the details of the interest rate assumptions underlying official economic forecasts.

  However, average building society mortgage interest rates are their lowest for a generation. As a result, average mortgage payments are currently £170 less a month, £150 less a month than five years ago. This has been possible only because of the Government's success in controlling inflation.

  Savings
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the levels of savings held by the public. [17645]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 1995 Budget reduced tax on savings income for basic rate taxpayers, benefiting around 14 million taxpayers.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the levels of savings in(a) the last year and (b) the year to May 1979 in 1996 values; and if he will make a statement. [17988]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  It is not possible to quote the levels of saving at 1996 values. Current national accounts practice is to revalue at 1990 prices. Total personal saving at 1990 prices in the 12-month period to September 1995—the latest available year—was £37.4 billion. The corresponding figure for the 12-month period to June 1979 was £30 billion. The national accounts are prepared quarterly and this is the closest period to May 1979 for which there are data. Information on personal sector saving at current prices is published annually in the Central Statistical Office Blue Book and quarterly in the CSO first release quarterly national accounts and is held on the CSO database; all sources are available in the Library.
  341

  Share Option Schemes
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority he attaches to increasing the number of employees participating in employee share option schemes. [17624]

  Mr. Jack
  Measures proposed in the Finance Bill are designed to encourage further and additional take-up of these schemes.

  Guidance Notes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [18632]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 5 March 1996]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Pre-retirement Courses
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action heads of his agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses; and if he will make a statement. [19349]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Each of the Chancellor's agencies offer pre-retirement courses to its staff.

  Female Employment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for the Staffordshire region how many women are(a) unemployed, (b) in full-time employment and (c) in part-time work. [19491]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  There were 7,801 women claiming unemployment-related benefits in Staffordshire in January 1996. The labour force survey sample of International Labour Organisation unemployed women in Staffordshire is too small to provide a reliable estimate.

  The latest available information from the labour force survey on employment, however, shows there were 122,000 women in full-time employment and 107,000 in part-time employment in Staffordshire in summer—June to August-1995.

  Companies (Reinvestment Relief)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the rules governing qualification for reinvestment relief relating to the percentage shareholding of any subsidiary companies and any overseas subsidiary companies; and if he will set out the relationship between these rules and the Government's policy drive for exports. [18905]

  Mr. Jack
  A company must not control, or own directly or indirectly, more than 50 per cent. of the share capital of any company which is not a qualifying subsidiary. There is no relationship between these rules and exports from the United Kingdom.
  342

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown, by region and gender, for (i) November 1990 and (ii) the latest date available, of(a) employees in temporary jobs because they could not find permanent employment, (b) the total number of employees in temporary jobs and (c) the total number of employees in temporary jobs as a proportion of the total number of employees in employment; [19103]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown, by region and gender, for (i) November 1990 and (ii) the latest date available, of (a) employees in part-time jobs because they could not find full-time employment, (b) the total number employees in part-time jobs and (c) the total number of employees in part-time jobs as a proportion of the total number of employees in employment. [19104]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested can be obtained via the Quantine labour force survey service available for spring—March to May—1991 and spring 1995, the latest comparable quarter.

  VAT (Opticians' Services)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the amount of VAT wrongly levied on opticians' services since 1988; and what steps he is taking to ensure that this money is returned to customers. [18730]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is estimated that the total amount of VAT to be refunded to opticians is of the order of £200 million. Where opticians acknowledge that VAT was passed on to customers, it is for the two sides to agree on the sum to be refunded. Where opticians have absorbed the VAT in their profits, they are under no obligation to pass on the refund to customers. Customs and Excise has no powers to insist that refunds are made to customers where the optician maintains they are not due.

  Exempt Works of Art
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of(a) the number and (b) the percentages of items on the register of conditionally exempt works of art for which (i) the location other than the county is not specified and (ii) the listed telephone number is incorrect. [18494]

  Mr. Jack
  All items in the register of conditionally exempt works of art are shown only by their broad location, usually the county, to take account of owners' concern for the security of the exempted items. The requested information about the listed telephone numbers is not available.

  The Inland Revenue monitors the operation of the exemption and the register by carrying out an annual sample audit of the exempted objects and by writing to owners every five years. The Inland Revenue's press release, issued with each quarterly update of the register, invites members of the public to write to the capital taxes office, Nottingham, if there is any difficulty in making satisfactory arrangements to view exempted objects. The capital taxes office has no evidence yet of any difficulties in practice.
  343

  Euro
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what expenditure he has authorised to date by the Royal Mint for preparations to produce coins and banknotes denominated in euros. [16090]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor gave him on 21 February 1996,Official Report, column 156.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Statistics (Gender Breakdown)
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Department is taking to collect statistics broken down by gender where relevant. [17693]

  Table A: Capital expenditure by LEAs 1990–91 to 1994–95

  £000s

  1990–91 Total expenditure

  1991–92 Total expenditure

  1992–93 Total expenditure

  1993–94 Total expenditure

  1994–95 Total expenditure (provisional)

  Corporation of London

  18,181

  0

  25

  2

  2,779

  Camden

  1,256

  2,819

  1,542

  409

  1,353

  Greenwich

  1—

  1,501

  1,122

  402

  2,182

  Hackney

  1,492

  1,203

  1,212

  1,535

  2,585

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,169

  2,071

  4,738

  3,398

  2,304

  Islington

  3,872

  1,947

  598

  851

  1,283

  Kensington and Chelsea

  5,046

  2,798

  2,023

  2,412

  2,339

  Lambeth

  894

  1,587

  2,144

  1,789

  2,071

  Lewisham

  1,522

  1,534

  757

  1,967

  4,795

  Southwark

  1—

  2,159

  3,148

  3,906

  4,407

  Tower Hamlets

  19,602

  17,103

  12,918

  12,068

  11,718

  Wandsworth

  3,818

  4,306

  5,835

  6,114

  7,694

  City of Westminster

  1,301

  1,848

  1,298

  1,025

  3,016

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,073

  7,249

  6,604

  3,013

  5,561

  Barnet

  5,255

  2,300

  2,734

  5,278

  5,572

  Bexley

  2,666

  2,365

  3,206

  5,606

  5,411

  Brent

  6,447

  3,727

  2,496

  1,639

  1,321

  Bromley

  5,527

  7,215

  6,189

  6,311

  13,453

  Croydon

  15,764

  8,439

  4,532

  3,772

  7,045

  Ealing

  2,816

  1,926

  3,524

  4,561

  5,054

  Enfield

  20,457

  16,146

  2,990

  2,356

  2,131

  Haringey

  1,339

  2,047

  693

  2,801

  2,615

  Harrow

  3,057

  3,538

  5,442

  5,099

  5,741

  Havering

  7,618

  4,848

  2,739

  1,024

  1,631

  Hillingdon

  4,958

  1,717

  5,513

  9,195

  4,842

  Hounslow

  5,300

  5,304

  7,311

  5,877

  3,528

  Kingston upon Thames

  4,144

  4,213

  1,257

  1,406

  3,117

  Merton

  10,861

  3,955

  3,468

  3,538

  4,791

  Newham

  7,128

  10,662

  6,751

  1,818

  3,087

  Redbridge

  5,842

  3,264

  5,370

  3,413

  5,337

  Richmond upon Thames

  3,010

  2,946

  2,713

  2,554

  2,898

  Sutton

  7,536

  7,292

  3,907

  3,426

  4,353

  Waltham Forest

  6,973

  3,441

  5,869

  7,264

  3,996

  Birmingham

  14,121

  14,507

  12,690

  12,853

  16,647

  Coventry

  11,415

  6,877

  5,388

  3,042

  3,052

  Dudley

  4,640

  6,667

  10,935

  4,047

  4,746

  Sandwell

  4,352

  2,740

  2,190

  5,581

  5,625

  Solihull

  3,275

  3,389

  2,644

  3,481

  3,497

  Walsall

  2,957

  2,447

  2,508

  1,528

  1,791

  Wolverhampton

  2,189

  2,631

  3,224

  3,304

  2,298

  Knowsley

  2,885

  1,297

  2,548

  2,496

  2,069

  Liverpool

  3,371

  2,477

  2,367

  3,457

  6,277

  St. Helens

  4,530

  7,084

  2,168

  1,698

  1,708

  Sefton

  4,854

  3,636

  2,294

  2,996

  1,199

  Wirral

  4,135

  4,630

  2,718

  1,294

  1,165

  344
  Mrs. Gillan
  Gender is a key characteristic of many of the statistics we collect in the Department.

  Capital Spending
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the capital spending by each local education authority in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what have been the Government capital allocations in each of those years and in all subsequent years for which allocations have been made. [19263]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Table A gives capital spending by local education authorities for the years 1990–91 to 1994–95 inclusive.

  Government capital allocations over the years 1990–91 to 1996–97 inclusive and are given in table B.
  345

  Table A: Capital expenditure by LEAs 1990–91 to 1994–95

  £000s

  1990–91 Total expenditure

  1991–92 Total expenditure

  1992–93 Total expenditure

  1993–94 Total expenditure

  1994–95 Total expenditure (provisional)

  Bolton

  3,683

  1,530

  2,037

  1,642

  1,777

  Bury

  1,324

  1,085

  1,047

  618

  1,491

  Manchester

  1—

  6,907

  9,807

  9,171

  12,593

  Oldham

  4,701

  10,989

  8,573

  4,278

  6,148

  Rochdale

  4,640

  7,362

  9,114

  2,068

  3,129

  Salford

  4,868

  3,651

  2,096

  3,365

  3,726

  Stockport

  3,123

  2,552

  2,033

  1,933

  1,694

  Tameside

  2,250

  1,949

  1,910

  1,231

  2,549

  Trafford

  11,207

  5,333

  5,572

  5,515

  4,008

  Wigan

  3,980

  5,322

  3,813

  1,323

  1,044

  Barnsley

  2,011

  1,910

  4,133

  2,704

  1,662

  Doncaster

  478

  410

  794

  1,580

  5,800

  Rotherham

  1,976

  1,331

  2,401

  1,855

  486

  Sheffield

  1—

  6,302

  7,022

  8,188

  8,181

  Bradford

  10,019

  12,505

  12,102

  9,380

  10,612

  Calderdale

  2,149

  2,153

  2,227

  1,856

  1,999

  Kirklees

  4,779

  4,463

  7,514

  9,087

  6,683

  Leeds

  10,903

  20,429

  25,556

  21,537

  9,799

  Wakefield

  1—

  3,299

  5,609

  11,768

  11,471

  Gateshead

  4,384

  5,078

  3,992

  1,837

  1,577

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,520

  3,387

  2,490

  3,280

  6,037

  North Tyneside

  2,122

  1,963

  2,331

  3,603

  4,854

  South Tyneside

  4,650

  4,584

  1,911

  1,849

  1,014

  Sunderland

  4,229

  4,223

  5,855

  5,553

  0

  Isles of Scilly

  212

  50

  117

  35

  22

  Avon

  10,539

  15,323

  14,077

  8,979

  8,069

  Bedfordshire

  3,219

  1,872

  5,880

  5,531

  5,207

  Berkshire

  10,662

  7,357

  16,234

  17,656

  17,079

  Buckinghamshire

  13,941

  13,312

  11,931

  9,766

  12,078

  Cambridgeshire

  16,232

  22,713

  23,230

  8,596

  10,921

  Cheshire

  10,778

  16,465

  21,908

  19,022

  21,310

  Cleveland

  6,643

  4,954

  4,786

  4,103

  5,715

  Cornwall

  12,333

  11,435

  14,611

  10,787

  7,989

  Cumbria

  8,306

  10,100

  12,325

  12,859

  10,016

  Derbyshire

  16,357

  14,459

  15,921

  10,512

  11,057

  Devon

  26,053

  32,599

  26,643

  25,308

  23,282

  Dorset

  8,900

  13,195

  14,622

  11,837

  20,180

  Durham

  5,822

  7,159

  8,218

  6,863

  6,684

  East Sussex

  13,937

  17,275

  18,156

  16,494

  17,832

  Essex

  19,713

  23,992

  19,844

  17,971

  23,824

  Gloucestershire

  11,956

  10,569

  7,331

  9,338

  10,775

  Hampshire

  33,101

  25,013

  23,715

  24,508

  34,322

  Hereford and Worcester

  11,919

  10,656

  5,493

  7,807

  8,427

  Hertfordshire

  14,040

  14,091

  13,432

  11,702

  16,845

  Humberside

  10,291

  8,578

  9,379

  7,123

  5,307

  Isle of Wight

  2,712

  3,299

  2,184

  2,597

  4,044

  Kent

  18,956

  24,964

  25,898

  23,190

  28,825

  Lancashire

  20,675

  20,255

  24,096

  25,019

  27,548

  Leicestershire

  13,282

  12,543

  12,373

  10,344

  10,374

  Lincolnshire

  11,667

  18,463

  19,485

  15,641

  16,346

  Norfolk

  6,936

  6,152

  5,707

  7,490

  6,724

  North Yorkshire

  5,586

  10,844

  8,170

  7,070

  4,715

  Northamptonshire

  4,956

  3,966

  3,250

  8,438

  5,701

  Northumberland

  2,969

  5,460

  5,338

  2,968

  2,503

  Nottinghamshire

  6,294

  6,318

  7,772

  5,767

  5,966

  Oxfordshire

  11,583

  3,524

  10,784

  11,824

  18,543

  Shropshire

  6,561

  7,384

  4,256

  4,856

  7,623

  Somerset

  7,777

  5,770

  11,132

  10,412

  8,466

  Staffordshire

  8,949

  10,160

  10,792

  6,917

  9,536

  Suffolk

  12,377

  11,109

  12,328

  11,256

  10,900

  Surrey

  17,896

  17,366

  15,917

  22,179

  22,566

  Warwickshire

  5,618

  3,602

  4,200

  4,726

  6,485

  West Sussex

  17,028

  14,753

  13,845

  21,437

  21,431

  Wiltshire

  9,483

  10,009

  9,949

  6,403

  5,626

  Total

  812,7492

  797,677

  797,610

  732,158

  799,281

  1 LEA did not submit information.

  2 Totals have been grossed to compensate for non-returns.

  346 347

  Table B: Local authority capital allocations: 1996–97

  £ million

  Education credit approvals

  Receipts taken into account

  Allocation for specialist schools1

  Announced total education2

  1990–913

  426.10

  49.00

  —

  475.10

  1991–923

  492.00

  46.00

  —

  538.00

  1992–933

  559.70

  36.00

  —

  595.70

  1993–94

  381.50

  62.00

  —

  443.50

  1994–95

  379.20

  31.00

  —

  410.20

  1995–96

  395.90

  31.00

  2.10

  429.00

  1996–974

  423.00

  35.00

  4.30

  462.30

  1 Allocations for specialist schools are by way of supplementary credit approval. The 1996–97 allocations are yet to be made.

  2 Total of annual capital guidelines (ACGs) and supplementary credit approvals (SCAs).

  3 Includes allocations to the further education sector prior to the establishment of the Further Education Funding Council.

  4 Figures include a £42 million reserve for SCAs which will issue during 1996–97.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library a list of all overseas visits made by all Ministers of her Department, the Department for Education and the Department of Employment 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. [17489]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 1 March 1996]: For information relating to the former Education and Employment Departments covering the period April 1992 to July 1995, I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my hon. Friends to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) on 5 and 6 July 1995, Official Report, columns 233 and 360 respectively. Information prior to April 1992 is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I have arranged for details of the information requested since the Department for Education and Employment was created in July 1995 to be placed in the Library. It is not our normal practice to give the names of the delegates who accompany the Minister. However, a delegation would normally include a private secretary and those officials needed to provide advice on policy and technical issues.

  Transsexuals (Discrimination)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) legislative changes and (b) other measures she plans to eradicate discrimination against transsexuals in the workplace following the European Court of Justice ruling in the case of PVS and Cornwall county council. [19260]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice was given on 14 December 1995. The court has yet to give its decision.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will remove the duty 348
  of investigating claims by parents seeking help under the assisted places scheme from participating schools and place such responsibility in the hands of an independent body. [19340]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Schools participating in the assisted places scheme determine eligibility for places and assess parental contributions towards fees, within the framework of the regulations and detailed guidance from the Department. Their discharge of these tasks is regularly audited. We continually seek ways of improving the administration of the scheme but have no present plans to remove responsibility from schools.

  Guidance Notes
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment 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. [18641]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  EU Funding
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much European funding has been received under the Socrates programme and predecessor schemes by(a) local education authority maintained schools, (b) grant-maintained schools, (c) city technology colleges and (d) independent schools, over the last available five-year period. [19144]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally. Available details of the funding allocated by the European Commission to institutions in the United Kingdom under Socrates and its predecessor programmes were given in my answer of 29 January 1996 to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain),Official Report, column 562.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 29 February 1996,Official Report, column 665, what guidance she has given to accepted, or potential, providers of early-years education concerning selection of children, or parents, holding vouchers relating to them, when valid applications for places exceed the capacity of the settings they are authorised, or able, to provide. [19568]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Places will be allocated according to providers' admissions criteria which they will be required to publish.

  Nursery Education (Inspections)
  Mr. Deva
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements have been made for the inspection of funded nursery education, as proposed in the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Bill. [20023]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Subject to its passage through Parliament and royal assent, the Bill will place upon Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England the duty of securing the inspection of funded nursery education, or
  349
  nursery education under consideration for funding, provided at any premises. The chief inspector will also be required to maintain a register of nursery education inspectors for England and ensure that they satisfactorily complete a course of training. In order for inspections to commence from the autumn term of this year, the office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England, Ofsted, must begin work immediately on the development of procedures for the recruitment and training of the inspectors.

  Parliamentary approval to this new service is subject to the passage of the Bill to Royal Assent. Pending that approval, urgent essential expenditure in 1995–96 estimated at £75,000 will be met by advances from the contingencies fund, to be repaid from the 1996–97 Ofsted vote—class IX, vote 4.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) Mexborough and (b) Doncaster residents within the parliamentary constituency of Don Valley entitled to received cold weather payments the station used as the basis for calculations; in respect of how many days each area has received cold weather payments in winter 1995–96; what has been the total amount paid to date; and if he will make a statement. [17376]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 6 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list for (a) Mexborough and (b) Doncaster residents within the Parliamentary constituency of Don Valley entitled to receive Cold Weather Payments (CWPs) the station used as the basis for calculations; in respect of how many days each area has received cold weather payments in winter 1995–96; what has been the total amount paid to date; and if he will make a statement.

  The information is not available in the format requested. This is because statistics are not kept which are specific to Parliamentary Constituencies but are kept by Benefit Agency Districts.

  Postal codes within the Rother and Dearne and Doncaster Districts are linked to the weather stations at Leeds and Waddington. A copy of the postal codes which are linked to each weather station is available in the Library. Leeds Weather Station has had 7 days of identified cold weather and Waddington has had 21 days.

  Rother and Deame District, which comprises the Benefit offices Goldthrope, Mexborough, Rotherham North, Rotherham South and Wath on Dearne, has made 24,032 CWPs amounting to £204,272 and Doncaster District, which comprises the Benefit offices Doncaster Castle House and Doncaster St. Peters House, has made 46,602 CWPs amounting to £396.117.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) West Yorkshire and (b) the Dewsbury constituency have received (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three and (iv) four cold weather payments in the past three months. [17335]
  350
  Mr. Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Ann Taylor, dated 6 March 1996:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in (a) West Yorkshire and (b) the Dewsbury constituency have received (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three and (iv) four cold weather payments in the past three months.

  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are not kept which are specific to Parliamentary Constituencies but are kept for Benefit Agency Districts. Also information is not kept on the number of people who received payments but is available to show the total number of payments made. The numbers of payments issued to each individual could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  However information is available for each district office (including the district which covers the Dewsbury area) in West Yorkshire for the last three months and is given at Appendix A.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Appendix A: Number of cold weather payments paid in West Yorkshire 1995–96

  District Benefit Offices

  Number paid

  Bradford

  Bradford East

  Bradford South

  Bradford West

  130,643

  Kirklees

  Dewsbury

  Huddersfield

  66,442

  Leeds Aire and Wharfe

  Leeds North

  Leeds North-west

  16,828

  Leeds Ridings

  Leeds East

  Leeds South

  Leeds West

  24,732

  Wakefield

  Castleford

  Hemsworth

  Pontefract

  Wakefield

  18,226

  Yorkshire Penine

  Halifax

  Keighley

  Skipton

  88,824

  Figures are provisional and subject to change. These figures do not include any clerical payments that may have been made in January and February as this information is not yet available. The data given are the number of actual payments made and not the number of people who received a payment.

  EDS Ltd.
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [17457]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested.
  351
  The contracts and agreements currently held with EDS are as follows:

  Child Support Agency (CSA)

  Start date

  Duration (years)

  CSA Software Support Services Agreement

  7 March 1992

  10

  CSA Operational Accounting System

  7 March 1992

  10

  CSA Maintenance Assessment

  8 July 1992

  10

  CSA Technical Services Agreement

  1 May 1994

  3

  The total value of these contracts is £23 million. The value of individual contracts is commercial in confidence.

  Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA)

  Start date

  Duration (years)

  ITSA Data Centre Services

  1 October 1995

  10

  The charges for these contracts are based on the volumes of outputs handled, and therefore values will depend on future levels of business. Current estimates are that over the 10-year period charges will be in the region of £600 million.

  "Options for Equality" Report
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what conclusions he has reached on the recommendations of the 1992 Social Security Advisory Committee report "Options for Equality in State Pension Age" that(a) there should be a new premium with income support for those unemployed for more than two years and aged over 55 years and long-term sick or disabled aged over 55 years, (b) invalid care allowance should be extended to 65 years for women and (c) the relationship between invalidity benefit and retirement pension should be reviewed. [18483]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Government have noted the comments of the 1992 Social Security Advisory Committee's proposals, including the three listed.

  We have no plans to introduce a new premium in income support. The existing premium structure directs additional resources to those groups identified as having extra needs.

  Regulations came into force on 28 October 1994 equalising the upper age limit for claiming invalid care allowance at 65 for both men and women.

  Invalidity benefit was replaced by incapacity benefit on 13 April 1995. Entitlement to the long-term rate of incapacity benefit ends when a person reaches state pension age. We have no plans to change this condition.

  Mobility Centres
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of Government funding for the United Kingdom forum of mobility centres. [18542]
  352
  Mr. Burt
  The table sets out the Government support to two member of the UK forum of mobility centres. In addition, the Department of Transport funds its own mobility centre—the mobility advice and venicle information service—which is Crowthorne, Berkshire.

  Forum member

  Allocation 1995–96 £

  Banstead Mobility Centre

  54,000

  Mobility Information Service

  13,000

  Publicity Costs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent in 1995 on publicising leaflet DS704; and how much is to be spent in 1996. [18546]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Leaflet DS704 forms part of the Benefits Agency's extensive leaflet programme and, as such, it is made available in a number of ways. There is no specific advertising of this leaflet and to extract a figure for its part of the overall budget for publicising benefits could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what longitudinal studies of pensioners' incomes he has conducted to investigate the extent to which the incomes of a representative sample of pensioners have changed since 1979; and if he will publish the results of these studies. [18336]

  Mr. Heald
  There are no DSS studies of the type described. We have commissioned a longitudinal survey of a nationally representative sample of people who were aged 55 to 69 when first interviewed in 1988–89. The results of the initial interviews can be found in an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report entitled "Retirement and Retirement Plans", a copy of which is available in the Library. In 1994 this group were re-interviewed and a report based upon both sets of interviews will be published by the summer of 1997. Information on the average incomes of pensioners 1979–1993 is published in "Pensioners' Incomes Series 1993", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Disabled People (Discrimination)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action the Government are taking to tackle discrimination against disabled people(a) nationally and (b) in the Greater Manchester area. [18347]

  Mr. Burt
  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, will make discrimination against disabled people unlawful in the fields of employment, services and property. It also includes measures to improve access to transport and education. The National Disability Council has been set up to advise the Government on the elimination of discrimination against disabled people and the operation of the Act.
  353

  Motability
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what monitoring his office carries out of Motability and Motability Finance Ltd.; and what representations he has received about Motability Finance Ltd.'s financial arrangements and profits. [18547]

  Mr. Burt
  Motability is required to report to the Department in accordance with conditions set out in the financial memorandum, the latest copy of which is in the Library. Motability Finance Ltd., MFL, is neither funded by nor accountable to this Department. Representations about the finance arrangements and profits of MFL have been received from several Members of both Houses, and a few members of the public.

  Income Support (Mortgages)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many borrowers who have claimed income support for help with mortgages since October 1995 are currently repaying loans at a rate higher than the 5 per cent. standard rate set by his Department in October 1995; and what savings this interest rate ceiling has produced to date. [18302]

  Gross Class 1 National Insurance Contributions in Great Britain at 1994–95 prices

  £ billion

  1994–95

  2000–01

  2010–11

  2020–21

  2030–31

  (a) Employers

  Current structure

  26.7

  33.0

  40.3

  46.9

  52.4

  (i) Extended to all earnings1

  26.9

  33.1

  40.4

  47.0

  52.5

  (ii) Extended to earnings below LEL1

  26.9

  33.1

  40.4

  47.0

  52.5

  (iii) Extended to earnings above UEL2

  26.7

  33.0

  40.3

  46.9

  52.4

  (b) Employees

  Current structure

  20.1

  24.4

  28.0

  30.1

  30.7

  (i) Extended to all earnings3,4

  23.1

  29.6

  36.1

  542.0

  547.0

  (ii) Extended to earnings below LEL3

  20.2

  24.5

  28.1

  530.1

  530.7

  (iii) Extended to earnings above UEL4

  23.0

  29.5

  36.0

  42.0

  47.0

  Notes:

  1Assumes the current 3 per cent. contribution rate would apply to earnings below the Lower Earnings Limit.

  2There is no Upper Earnings Limit on employers' contributions.

  3Assumes the current 2 per cent. contribution rate would apply to earnings below the Lower Earnings Limit.

  4Assumes the current 10 per cent. contribution rate would apply to earnings above the Upper Earnings Limit.

  5The additional yield from contributions on earnings below the Lower Earnings Limit is estimated to be negligible.

  1. The figures for 2000–01 and later years are based on the assumptions contained in the "National Insurance Fund Long Term Financial Estimates" (HC160) published in January 1995. All figures exclude the effects of contracted-out rebates.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of men aged between 60 and 64 years who paid employee's national insurance contributions in the last year for which figures are available. [19496]

  Mr. Heald
  In the 1992–93 tax year 571,000 men' aged between 60 and 64 at 5 April 1993 paid some employee's national insurance contributions.

  Notes:

  Includes men who paid a mixture of class 1 employee and class 2 self-employed national insurance contributions.

  Source:

  1 per cent. sample of national insurance records.
  354
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The standard rate applied under the income support mortgage interest scheme is 8 per cent.; prior to 28 January it was 8.39 per cent. The standard rate is applied unless the borrower's actual interest rate is less than 5 per cent. when help with mortgage interest payments begins. In such cases, that rate is used until the borrower's actual rate increases to 5 per cent. or more, at which stage, the standard rate is applied. Information on the claimant's actual interest rate is not collected when the standard rate is applied. Outturn information on savings from the introduction of the standard rate will become available when the February 1996 quarterly statistical inquiry is published.

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is estimated to be the total value of(a) employers' and (b) employees' national insurance contributions; and what would be the corresponding total values if (i) contributions at present rates were collected on all earnings, (ii) contributions at present rates were extended only to earnings below the lower earnings level and (iii) contributions at present rates were extended only above the upper earnings level in (1) 1994–95, (2) 2000–01, (3) 2010–01, (4) 2020–01 and (5) 2030–01, at 1994 prices. [18914]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table:

  Hearing Loss
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the net saving or additional cost from abolishing lump sum awards to ex-service people with an attributable hearing loss of 20 per cent., taking into account the extra costs of appeal hearings by the pensions appeal tribunals since abolition; and if he will make a statement. [18953]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 6 March 1996]: Any service-related disablement assessed at 20 per cent. or more attracts a continuing pension rather than a lump sum gratuity.
  355
  The threshold excluding payment of war pension gratuities for service-related noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss assessed at less than 20 per cent. came into operation from 7 January 1993. We estimate that, between that date and the end of January this year, the total cost of the gratuities otherwise payable would have been over £130 million.

  The estimated administrative cost of appeals heard by the pensions appeal tribunals involving the assessment of noise-induced sensorineural deafness in the same period is approximately £2 million.

  The change on noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss formed part of a package which increased considerably, from April 1993, the war pensions of the most severely disabled ex-service men and women. Nearly 265,000 war pensioners are now benefiting from the increase at an estimated annual cost of some £26 million.

WALES

  Teachers' Pay Award
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide additional funds to local education authorities to match the teachers' pay award; and if he will make a statement.[18448]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend's decisions on the Welsh local government revenue settlement for 1996–97 were approved by the House of Commons on 8 February. The settlement is consistent with the Government's commitment to restrain public expenditure and is sufficient for all local authorities in Wales to fund services adequately.

  The School Teachers Review Body took account of the Government's policy on public spending, including their view that increases in public sector pay should be met from improvements in productivity and efficiency, along with evidence submitted by the teachers' unions and the employers, in formulating its recommendations.

  The Government do not consider it appropriate to provide additional resources to fund the pay award. The money could be found only at the cost of other important spending programmes, such as health. The decision to stage the award, increasing pay scales by 2.75 per cent. from 1 April 1996 and by a further 1 per cent. on 1 December 1996, will help local authorities and schools absorb the increases and meet the demand of other budgetary pressures.

  Strategic Development Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the county of Mid Glamorgan received in 1995 from the strategic development scheme; and if he will make a statement. [18271]
  356
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The strategic development scheme funding approved in 1995–96 for local authorities in the county of Mid Glamorgan is:

  Local authority

  Total approved £

  Mid Glamorgan county council

  4,961,500

  Cynon Valley borough council

  3,262,032

  Merthyr Tydfil borough council

  1,445,640

  Ogwr borough council

  1,122,622

  Rhondda borough council

  2,708,758

  Rhymney Valley district council

  1,080,067

  Taff Ely borough council

  815,220

  Total

  15,395,829

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amount of the money allocated to Mid Glamorgan under the strategic development scheme for 1996 will be spent on new schemes; and if he will make a statement. [18273]

  Mr. Jones
  Strategic development scheme support for new schemes in 1996–97 has been allocated to new unitary authorities as follows:

  Unitary authorities

  Allocations for new schemes £

  Bridgend

  818,000

  Caerphilly

  1,855,000

  Merthyr

  492,000

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  4,037,250

  Total

  7,202,250

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much he estimates will be allocated to Wales in 1996 under the strategic development scheme; and if he will make a statement. [18269]

  Mr. Jones
  A total of £63 million has already been allocated for 1996–97 under the strategic development scheme for projects to revitalise Welsh communities, regenerate town centres and open up new areas of investment and opportunity in areas of need.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the county of Mid Glamorgan will receive in 1996 from the strategic development scheme; and if he will make a statement.[18272]

  Mr. Jones
  Strategic development scheme support in 1996–97 has been allocated to new unitary authorities as follows:

  Unitary authority

  Total allocation (£)

  Bridgend

  1,408,972

  Caerphilly

  4,210,451

  Merthyr

  1,660,407

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  9,742,909

  Total

  17,022,739

  357
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total of money allocated to Wales in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995 under the strategic development scheme; and if he will make a statement. [18274]

  Mr. Jones
  The total allocated to local authorities in Wales under the strategic development scheme was(a) £59.4 million in 1994–95 and (b) £57 million in 1995–96. Outturn allocations for 1995–96 may vary.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what considerations led him not to include data on the effects and quantities of radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident in his Department's ninth annual "Environmental Digest for Wales". [18550]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The "Environmental Digest for Wales" is a wide-ranging compilation of statistics on the Welsh environment but is not intended to be exhaustive. The Chernobyl accident is referred to on page 110 of the digest, together with sources for further information. Appendix 4 of the digest gives references to additional data held in earlier editions.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance he plans to make available to colleges of further education in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [18451]

  Mr. Richards
  The Department's letter of 13 December 1995 to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales set out the Government's priorities for the Welsh further education sector in 1996–97. It announced that £173.423 million of grant in aid would be made available to the funding council in that year. A copy of the letter was placed in the Library of the House.

  Ofsted Budget
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the Ofsted budget in(a) 1994–95 and
  (b) 1995–96; what the outturn figure for 1995–96 will be; and if he will make a statement. [18447]

  Mr. Richards
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. Mr. Chris Woodhead will write to the hon. Member.

  Cocaine-related Deaths
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cocaine-related deaths have occurred in each of the past five years in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [18267]

  Mr. Richards
  According to records kept by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, no death certificates relating to deaths of Welsh residents in the period 1990 to 1994 mention cocaine.
  358

  Doctors
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were registered with NHS family doctor practices in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1995, indicating the figures as a percentage of the population in Wales. [18819]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on patients registered with general medical practitioners (family doctors) in Wales is given in the following table. The figures may include people who, although registered with doctors in Wales, are not Welsh residents and people who are still registered with a doctor but who have either died or moved and not re-registered.

  Number of patients registered

  Percentage of population

  1 October 1980

  2,862,239

  102

  1 October 1985

  2,915,168

  104

  1 October 1990

  2,963,612

  103

  1 April 19951

  2,982,429

  102

  1 The latest data available. The 1994 population figure has been used to calculate the percentage as 1995 data are not yet available.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) junior doctors, and (b) other hospital doctors there were in (i) 1985, (ii) 1990 and (iii) 1995. [18739]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is given in the following table:

  Whole-time equivalent number of staff in post (excluding locums)

  Junior hospital doctors1

  Other hospital doctors2

  30 September 1985

  1,305

  893

  30 September 1990

  1,394

  1,042

  30 September 19953

  1,651

  1,321

  1 House officers, senior house officers, registrars and senior registrars.

  2 Consultants, staff grades, associate specialists, hospital practitioners and clinical assistants.

  3 Provisional.

  Trainee Nurses
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of trainee nurses for(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [18729]

  Mr. Richards
  New arrangements for pre-registration nurse education and training were phased in under Project 2000. Information on the numbers of Project 2000 students and pre-registration learners other than Project 2000 students is given in the following table:

  Project 2000 students

  Pre-registration learners (excluding Project 2000)

  30 September1993

  1,709

  1,042

  30 September1994

  2,062

  145

  30 September 1995

  1,851

  8

  Regional Development Funding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total money allocated to Wales under the objective 2 programme in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [18610]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amounts allocated in the objective 2 industrial south Wales single programme document 1994–95 are:

  (a) 1994: 59.76 mecu

  (b) 1995: 62.32 mecu

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much he estimates will be allocated to Wales in 1996 under the objective 2 programme; and if he will make a statement. [18606]

  Mr. Jones
  The amount allocated for 1996 in the objective 2 industrial south Wales single programme document 1994 to 1996 is 65.92 mecu. Our intention is to commit to projects all the programmes available grant resources by the end of 1996.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the county of Mid Glamorgan received in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995 from the objective 2 programme; how much it will receive in 1996; and if he will make a statement. [18605]

  Mr. Jones
  Payments to projects in the county of Mid Glamorgan under previous industrial south Wales objective 2 programmes were as follows:(a) £9.3 million in 1994; and (b) £4.4 million in 1995. Payments made to date under the 1994 to 1996 programme will register in 1996.

  It is not possible to quantify how much will be received by the county of Mid Glamorgan in 1996 since this is dependent on future approvals under the latest programme and sponsors submitting claims for grant to the Welsh Office on time.

  Livestock Quotas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh producers applied unsuccessfully for assessment of applications to category 3 as developers, in respect of the 1993 national quota reserve; and if he will make a statement. [18809]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of 807 applications from sheep producers and 226 applications from suckler cow producers were unsuccessful.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what publicity is given to the closing date for applications for the sheep and suckler cow quota. [18808]

  Mr. Jones
  Details of the opening and closing dates for the various national reserve application periods are announced through Welsh Office press releases. In addition, we inform the main farming organisations and, in certain circumstances, write to individual producers.

  Smoking
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of(a) men and (b) women in Wales aged 15 to 20 years smoke; and if he will make a statement. [18607]
  360
  Mr. Richards
  The 1994 Welsh youth health survey shows that in the 15 to 16 age group, 26 per cent. of males and 34 per cent. of females smoke at least occasionally. The 1993 Health in Wales shows that in the 18 to 20 age group 28 per cent. of male and 25 per cent. of females smoke at least occasionally. No survey has included 17-year-olds.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the planned expenditure on road construction on Wales in(a) 1995 to 1996 and (b) 1996 to 1997; and if he will make a statement. [18784]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Provisional outturn for central Government net expenditure on new construction and improvement of motorways and trunk roads in 1995–96 is £118 million. Net provision for 1996–97 is £86.7 million.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 27 February 1996,Official Report, column 496, in which month the financial problems of the South East Wales ambulance trust became apparent; and on what date his Department commenced its close contact with the trust. [18625]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 4 March 1996]: The trust has provided monthly financial information to my Department since May 1993. My Department became concerned about the financial performance of the trust following a meeting on 24 June 1994. The financial information submitted by the trust in August reinforced these concerns. A letter was sent to the chief executive on 2 September 1994 expressing the Department's disquiet and asking for an assurance that the necessary action would be taken to meet statutory financial obligations.

  Theatr Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to visit Theatr Clwyd, Mold, Clwyd; and if he will make a statement. [18928]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I visited Theatr Clwyd on Wednesday 28 February.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make representations to(a) Welsh and (b) English local authorities in the vicinity of Theatr Clwyd to make additional contributions to the running costs of Theatr Clwyd, Mold. [18917]

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further discussions he intends to undertake with Flintshire, Denbighshire, Wrexham and Abercolwyn/Conwy councils regarding the future funding of Theatr Clwyd, Mold. [19479]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In his letter to the leader of Flintshire county council offering a one-off grant of £1.3 million to discharge Theatr Clwyd's outstanding capital debt, my right hon. Friend made it clear that he was looking to Flintshire to undertake urgent consultations with local authorities in the area, and any other interested parties, with a view to securing financial support for the running of the theatre. This responsibility rests with Flintshire county council.
  361

  Schools (Music)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to assist the teaching of music in schools. [18918]

  Mr. Richards
  The Bright Future programme applies to music as to every other discipline.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his priorities in respect of his proposals to create jobs in the manufacturing sector. [18921]

  Non-IT

  IT material

  Year

  Number

  Value £

  Number

  Value £

  Items of equipment and furniture stolen

  1991–92

  14

  4,972.10

  Nil

  —

  1992–93

  5

  1,682.80

  Nil

  —

  1993–94

  8

  2,037.17

  1

  1,183.74

  1994–95

  5

  23,220.08

  Nil

  —

  1995–96

  22

  23,513.53

  6

  3,415.73

  Items of equipment and furniture unaccounted for

  1991–92

  27

  95.00

  Nil

  —

  1992–93

  1

  25.00

  Nil

  —

  1993–94

  Nil

  —

  Nil

  —

  1994–95

  17

  94.23

  Nil

  —

  1995–96

  1

  68.49

  17

  5,500.00

  There were no individual items valued at £5,000 or more

  Teacher Morale
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to improve the morale of teachers; and if he will make a statement. [18923]

  Mr. Richards
  Good teachers are motivated by the desire to see their pupils achieve, and by the sense of purpose and direction which a good senior staff team is able to create in a school. The document "A Bright Future", published last year, focuses on these issues, and has been well received by teachers in Wales.
  362
  Mr. Hague
  During the Welsh Affairs debate on 29 February 1996,Official Report, columns 1024–98, I set out those areas of policy that I considered most important to the economy of Wales, and in particular to the manufacturing sector.

  Departmental Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and its agencies in each of the past five years, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [19042]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is as follows for the Welsh Office and its agency:

  Unemployment Benefit (Alyn and Deeside)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the amount of unemployment benefit paid to claimants in the Alyn and Deeside constituency in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995, separately indicating the sums for (i) long-term unemployed and (ii) those aged 18 to 24 years. [18929]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

War Crimes Act 1991
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many prosecutions have been instituted under the War Crimes Act 1991, and when decisions will be made in cases remaining under consideration.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, proceedings have been commenced in one case under the War Crimes Act 1991. The Crown Prosecution Service will take decisions as to possible prosecution in other cases once police investigations have been concluded and all relevant evidence has been fully considered and analysed.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. As to the first limb of the Question, regarding Mr. Serafinowicz, aged 85, when is it expected that the committal proceedings, which started as long ago as 4th January, will end; and when is it expected that the substantive trial will start?
As regards the second limb of the Question concerning the remaining cases, six or seven of which have been under investigation since Hethrington in 1988, will my noble and learned friend accept that the purpose of this Question is not to thwart the will of another place, nor to stifle prosecutions, but to seek to contain the delay which affects the prospect of any fair trial?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course I accept what my noble friend says regarding the purpose of his Question. So far as the committal proceedings to which he referred are concerned, they were commenced on 4th January 1996. They were adjourned until 19th February 1996. Evidence was heard from 19th February to 1st March 1996 inclusive, and the proceedings now stand adjourned until 18th March 1996. The current best estimate is that committal proceedings will be completed by mid-April. I do not have information as to when, if at all, there will be a trial.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much public money has been spent in the attempt to implement this Act?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, by the end of January 1996, Metropolitan Police costs were some £5.7 million and the CPS costs, rounded up, were £1.6 million. Those were the costs in this country.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord agree that it would not matter how
410
much money was spent, or how much delay there is, if only one of the perpetrators of the ghastly genocide against the Jews and the torture and murder of many other political dissidents was brought to book?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is primarily a matter for Parliament. The House of Commons took a decision in relation to the promotion of the Bill, which eventually became an Act as a result of the application of the Parliament Acts.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not plain that the real question is not whether they are convicted but whether they have a fair trial?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sure that the proceedings will be conducted with all the fairness of which our system has every reason to be proud.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I totally agree with his remark at the end of his intervention? To give those charged under this Act a fair trial we need an open judicial system, which we have; a careful collection of evidence, which we have; and we need that evidence to be analysed in public, which it will be. Is it not time, somebody now having been charged under the Act, that the courts were allowed to get on with their duty?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have no doubt that the committal proceedings will go forward with all reasonable expedition under the chairmanship of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who is presiding on the occasion.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the chief prosecutor at the documentation research centre at Ludwigsburg, in Germany, has decided that no more prosecutions of these suspects will take place because of their age and because of probable sickness? Is that a view that my noble and learned friend would share?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that would be a view taken in the circumstances by that particular official. So far as this country is concerned, the responsibility lies with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General. I report their views to the House; but these decisions are personal responsibilities of theirs.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recall that the Hethrington Report argued that the great difficulty in regard to prosecution was the age of the witnesses and the suspects? That was eight years ago. Will he agree that, as the years go by and these proceedings drag on, the whole process becomes increasingly distasteful? Is it not becoming apparent that the other place, and the Government, might be wise to accept the advice of this House on the subject?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the other place gave its view. It would be quite presumptuous of me to express any view of my own in relation to that once the matter has become an Act of Parliament.

411
I think I am right in saying that the Hethrington-Chalmers Report indicated that there was a case for prosecution, at least in some cases. I do not profess to give the whole sense of what was quite a long document; the part to which the noble Lord referred was not the whole.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend agree that, at a time when further massacres are being perpetrated against the Jewish people, it is the height of bad taste to try to draw a veil over even greater atrocities in the past?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, my position is that Parliament, having regard to the history I referred to, put this Act on the statute book; and the executive authorities, my right honourable friend the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, are carrying out the duties that fall to them in consequence of that statute.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the alleged crimes took place 53 years ago? Can we be sure that the evidence of identification, particularly if it is taken over television, will be reliable?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is a matter for the court of trial. Noble Lords would be surprised, if not astonished, were Ito give a view about that at this stage. That is a matter for the court of trial. It would be a tremendous impertinence on my part, not having heard any of the evidence or seen anything on the television about it, to express a view on that matter. The noble Lord may have his own view but I do not think that it would be right for me to express mine.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that with the recommendation of the government of which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was a member—namely, that in the interests of justice further prosecutions would be a mistake—we are looking back with hindsight at a Labour Government which uttered great words of wisdom with that advice?
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord answers that question, I believe that I follow the wish of the House in asking whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House would move to the next Question.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps we may split the difference. My noble and learned friend might like to answer the question as briefly as he is able and we can then move on.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think I have given my answer to that question already.

Oleg Gordievsky
3.10 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Government of the Russian Federation about the death sentence passed against Mr. Oleg Gordievsky by the Soviet authorities in 1985, which remains valid today even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, Mr. Gordievsky is a British citizen, and Russia is a member of the Council of Europe.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have made no representations to the Russian Government about the death sentence passed on Oleg Gordievsky, nor has Mr. Gordievsky asked us to do so.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. But does she share my view that the Russian Federation's willingness to cancel the death sentence and indeed to pardon Mr. Gordievsky would be seen as a measure of the new Russia's willingness to live in peace with the western world, with Partnership for Peace, and with the principles of the Council of Europe? Does she think it would be very desirable that the Russians should do away with that death sentence?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the whole question of whether the Russians should give it up or not is entirely for them. But we expect Russia to respect the conditions imposed by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and we expect Russia to meet its obligations as a member of the Council of Europe. We shall work with Russia to help achieve its goals there.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Mr. Gordievsky served our intelligence services with great courage? Is it not anomalous that the authorities should maintain a sentence of death on him? Will she go further and ask the Russian Government to consider that point?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords. The Government take the view that any decision to maintain and implement the death penalty is a matter for each state. We do not believe that there is a problem for Mr. Gordievsky now.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there have been any representations regarding other defectors—not connected with the KGB, but soldiers and others who are afraid to go back home—and whether a general amnesty might be considered?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge there has been no such application for an amnesty. I shall look into the matter and if there is further information I shall let my noble friend know.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the death sentence cannot be a matter for the Russian Government only? Mr. Gordievsky is a British citizen.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly and the member states' governments will monitor progress on Russia's compliance with commitments. But, as I said earlier, I do not believe that this matter is now the problem that it was in 1985 when the situation in Russia was extremely different and indeed when Mr. Gordievsky had not qualified to become a British citizen.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the Minister see any parallel with the Rushdie situation?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as a consequence of accession to membership of the Council of Europe, Russia will be monitored carefully over an initial three-year period by the Legal Committee of the Council of Europe? Is she further aware that the Russian authorities have said to the relevant authorities in the Council of Europe that on the issue of capital punishment this is to cease forthwith?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the information in the second part of his Question, which I shall not repeat. The situation in Russia has changed dramatically. Long may that change continue and the country continue to modernise. In the same way the situation of which we now speak, some 10 years on, has greatly changed. I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Minister said that Mr. Gordievsky had made no representations for help from the British Government. Can she reveal whether or not there has been any contact between the British ambassador or a member of the embassy with Mr. Gordievsky?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no reason why that should be so. As my noble friend knows, this is a matter for a British citizen now. If he had any representations to make they would be made here in London.

Gas Fitters: Qualifications
3.16 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent gas appliances being made lethally dangerous by fitters who do not possess the qualifications required to fit them.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994 require that anyone who works on a gas fitting must he competent to do so. The regulations also require that gas installation businesses which undertake gas work in domestic or most commercial premises must belong to a body which is approved by the Health and Safety Executive. The Council for Registered Gas Installers (otherwise known as CORGI) has been approved for that purpose. Failure to comply with either of those requirements is an offence.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Are the Government concerned over reports that more than 80 supposed engineers were convicted last year for working without having received approval from the Council for Registered Gas Installers and that the law is probably being broken also by others, some of whom pretend to have that approval, which results in lives being put in danger?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is quite correct. Last year there were some 82 convictions relating to all gas work, of which 39 involved offences for non-registration with CORGI. The law is perfectly clear. Since 1994 there has been a legal requirement that gas work must be competently carried out and installers must belong to a class of persons approved by the Health and Safety Executive. From January 1998, each fitter will need a certificate of competence. I suggest that it is up to everyone who employs such a person to install or mend appliances to ensure that that person is approved before they do so.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, bearing in mind the progressive opening up of the gas market starting this year and to be completed in 1998, is the noble Earl satisfied that gas consumers will be sufficiently safeguarded in the servicing arrangements for their appliance and installations under the open market situation? Is he also satisfied that the provisions of the Gas Act 1995 do in fact safeguard them sufficiently in that respect?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I believe that is the case. The Government are committed to ensuring the safety of gas after liberalisation. The new gas safety management regulations come into force on 1st April this year. British Gas Transco also must have an emergency response service over 24 hours, in the same way as British Gas does now. I do not see why that safety should not be secured.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what is this all about? Has any gas fitter or anyone else ever been blown up? Is this a serious matter?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the whole idea is to prevent people from being blown up.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is concern that although the CORGI arrangements are welcome, there is no

415
procedure to enforce registration or to recall registration documents if a fitter is removed from the list? Should not a procedure be in place to require that? Furthermore, is the noble Earl satisfied that the Health and Safety Executive has sufficient inspectors to ensure that procedures are properly enforced? Would it not be a good idea to have some kind of independent body capable of enforcing the rights of consumers in these matters?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not believe that we need another independent body. The Health and Safety Executive has adequate powers. One must remember that a number of people are involved. There are around 150,000 fitters and 150 inspectors registered through CORGI. It will take time for the system to be properly organised. New arrangements which started on 1st January this year will come into operation in January 1998. At that time each fitter will have to be certified as a fitter and each business must be a member of CORGI.
To return to the earlier question of my noble friend, when people ask for their gas installations to be serviced or installed it is their responsibility to ensure that the fitter concerned is a member of CORGI and, after 1998, that he is a registered fitter.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—who seems to doubt whether the Question was necessary—has not been reading some important articles in national broadsheet newspapers? They have recorded the deaths, often overnight, of people sleeping in rooms where gas equipment has been wrongly fitted. I shall send my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway copies of extracts of the newspaper articles recording those deplorable incidents.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am more than delighted to be a post box by which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy will deliver his rocket to his noble friend behind him.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can the Minister say whether or not the regulations apply to a private householder doing work for himself as opposed to buying in the services of somebody else?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is a pertinent question and the answer is that they do not. They apply only to people who service gas fitments for other people or run businesses that do so.

Burlington House
3.23 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi Lord Strabolgi asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they have decided to sell off the premises of the five learned societies which have been located around the forecourt of Burlington House for over a century and which now face eviction.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, since about 1877 the learned societies have occupied part of Burlington House free of rent and external repair costs as it was understood to be part of the government estate. The ownership of the building is now in question. Until that matter has been resolved, no permanent arrangements for the future can be made.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. However, are the Government aware that those learned societies, which are used by scholars from all over the world, are unable to pay the £10 million now being asked by the Government for premises which they have occupied for more than 100 years? It would be a tragedy for scholarship if they had to leave and a tragedy for the ambiance of Burlington House itself.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, may be a little carried away with some of the figures. The Government have not asked for £10 million. They had an individual assessment made for Burlington House as though it were freehold and not tenanted. The rough assessment amounted to £10 million. The point is—and it is important—that the issue arose because there was an efficiency scrutiny undertaken as a result of which it was decided that government departments, rather than the property holdings, should be in charge of the property in which they are housed. It was found that no government department was involved in Burlington House. We want to ensure that there is a long-standing, suitable arrangement for that excellent and beautiful building which houses the learned societies to which the noble Lord refers.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Earl remember that after the war there was a plan to build a science centre on the South Bank? It was never implemented. The plans are still available. The societies are not ordinary tenants. They need library space, meeting rooms and so forth. The Government have a responsibility to the intellectual community to see that they are properly housed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not disagree in the slightest with the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. It is not our intention that that should not be so housed. At the moment, we are concerned that property which we thought belonged to, and was the responsibility of, the Government is now disputed. Until the dispute as to who owns the property can be resolved we cannot decide what to do with it. We want to see that the learned societies remain properly housed.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that one of the societies is the Linnean Society, which is housed in the forecourt of the Royal Academy? I know that that society does not have any extra money. Will the Government consider returning that botanical collection to the country of its origin, where I am sure it will be housed for nothing?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to say that the Linnean Society is one of the learned societies in question. I am not sure of the import

417
of the latter part of the noble Baroness's question, nor of the meaning, but I shall study it. I was merely trying to point out that the ownership of a house which was always considered to be part of the government estate is now disputed. Once the ownership is resolved we can find the best way forward for the future of that building and those who occupy it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House with whom the Government have had the dispute as to the ownership of the property?
Earl Ferrers: With the learned societies, my Lords.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, the noble Earl does not recall, I am sure, that when the learned societies were moved to Burlington House in 1873 Lord Palmerston said that they were being provided with accommodation mainly for the advantage of the country. Is it still the view of the Government that the work of the societies is for the advantage of the country? If so, cannot the Government give a more positive response to the questions being asked and say that, whatever may happen to Burlington House in financial terms, they will ensure that the societies are properly housed?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the first part of her question. I do not recall what Lord Palmerston said in 1873. However, I am prepared to accept that he said what the noble Baroness suggests. There are three alternatives, possibly more. If the building belongs to the learned societies they may take responsibility for it or it may be possible to set up a trust fund for them to look after it. Alternatively, it may be possible for the Government to look after it. If that is so, we shall need legislation to ensure that taxpayers' money is properly used for that purpose.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, apart from the fact that Lord Palmerston died in 1865, is the noble Earl aware that his answers this afternoon have lacked the crystal clarity we normally expect of him? Will he give an assurance that it is the firm intention of the Government that the learned societies shall remain in the forecourt of Burlington House at rents they can afford?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful for at least one part of the noble Lord's question; that is, that he corrected me. My noble friend the Leader of the House corrected me but at the same time as about 100 other people were talking on the Front Bench. I was therefore unable to hear that Lord Palmerston died in 1865 as opposed to 1873. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, will take the rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that my answers were not of the crystal clarity he normally expects. I am deeply grateful for that. The fact is that the position lacks the normal crystal clarity which one would expect. We thought—everyone thought—that the building belonged to the Government. That is now disputed. Until that dispute is resolved one cannot decide what should be done. In his final question, the noble Lord asked whether we would ensure that the learned bodies
418
hold those offices—I think he said free of charge, but perhaps he did not. Our desire is that they should remain. But we have to work out the realities, and I cannot give the noble Lord a carte blanche. What we have to do is to try to find out the best way of preserving the building and the best way of ensuring that the learned bodies can stay there.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is a matter of regret that the Government seem to have lost a building which they thought they owned. Given the fact that the Government thought they owned the building and the forecourt, is it not extraordinary that the forecourt itself has been allowed to fall into a state of total disrepair? The Government, whom one must assume accepted responsibility, will have to meet a bill, or the learned societies will have to meet a bill—depending on who actually owns the forecourt—of some £2 million. What are the Government going to do?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the first thing we have to do is find out who owns it. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, really cannot laugh in a disparaging way. One does not spend £2 million on something one does not own. So that is the first thing. Having done that, one then has to try to devise the best method of ensuring that the building is looked after. What noble Lords opposite are trying to say is that the Government should give a guarantee that they will foot all the bills. I am saying that I will not give them that guarantee. But we will give a guarantee that we shall do our best to ensure that the learned societies remain there and that the buildings are properly looked after. We cannot do more than that.

Police Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
Report received.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 66 [Variation of regional Channel 3 licence following change of control]:
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 56, line 40, at end insert—
("() On being notified of a prospective change of control, the Commission shall investigate the prospective owner (or if a relevant change of control takes place, the new owner) who shall be required to provide such information to the Commission as is requested by the Commission.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull had intended to be here today but for very understandable reasons is unfortunately unable to do so and has asked me to speak to this amendment on his behalf.
The amendment is designed to empower the ITC to investigate potential owners and to ensure that prospective owners are obliged to provide full information to the ITC. The amendment would also ensure that the ITC has similar powers to investigate and require information from any new owner should no notice of control be given. I hope your Lordships agree that this is an appropriate addition to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I support the amendment. In Committee there was a general welcome for Clause 66, as it is now, but it was thought at the same time that the safeguards which are in the clause should be strengthened. The safeguards in subsections (3) and (4) are triggered when it appears to the commission that the relevant change of control is or would be prejudicial. It seems to us that there is no great difficulty when a change of control is prejudicial. The facts should speak for themselves. But what information would have to be before the commission to enable it to form a view as to whether the proposed change of control would be prejudicial? To assist the commission in that situation, we believe that it should be authorised to obtain all relevant information from the proposed new owner. Under the 1990 Act it already has the power to requisition information from the holder of a licence. This amendment would extend the power and enable the commission to obtain the information from a proposed new owner.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I welcome Clause 66 of the Bill. It will protect regional Channel 3 services in the event of a change of ownership. This clause quite definitely should be strengthened so as to empower the commission to investigate any prospective new owner. I believe that the amendment should give strength to the commission in protecting regional services. It has been demonstrated time and again that it is the regional services that people want. This amendment should ensure that people do not suffer any loss of Channel 3 regional service if there is a change of ownership. I therefore support the amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendment. This matter was gone into thoroughly at the Committee stage and the Minister was forthcoming in his reply to the discussion. We all welcome the clause which the Government have tabled but feel that the regional character of ITV is of such importance that there are various ways in which the clause can be strengthened beyond peradventure. This amendment is designed for that purpose.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, while I sympathise with the purpose of the amendment I doubt whether it is necessary or helpful absolutely to require the ITC to investigate the new owner where a change of control is
420
proposed. We are, after all, talking about a situation in which the prospective owner may be very well known in great detail to the ITC by virtue of being an existing and longstanding licence holder itself. Moreover, it may for business reasons be of the essence that a change of control which everyone agrees is in the public interest should proceed. So I hesitate over the first part of the amendment.
Nevertheless, I sympathise with the principle that in coming to decisions whether or not to act to use its powers under the clause the ITC should have available to it all relevant information and those concerned should be required to provide that information. I should therefore like to consider further whether the ITC already has sufficient powers, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, pointed out, or whether something like the second half of the amendment needs to he added to the Bill. If it does, the Government will introduce an amendment for that purpose. I very much hope that in the light of that assurance my noble friend will feel it is not necessary to press the amendment at this stage.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think I am right in understanding that my noble friend accepts the principle of the amendment but would like to look at its wording and has undertaken to bring forward an appropriate amendment with the right wording at Third Reading. On that assumption, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 57, line 12, leave out ("included") and insert ("originating from each regional services area and offered for inclusion").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am comforted by my understanding that the commission may consider that there is merit in this amendment. I hope therefore that I can deal with it briefly. If regional broadcasters are to be able to continue to make their contribution to the diversity of British society it is essential that they should be able to continue to offer their productions to the Channel 3 network. Of course, it would be for the network to accept or reject what is being offered. Nevertheless, the commission ought to he satisfied that they can have access to the network. To the best of my recollection, at Cotnmittee stage no Member of the Committee spoke against a similar amendment. Indeed, the noble Lord the Minister promised that the department would consider carefully what had been said. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, an amendment similar to this one was tabled by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell at Committee. I have discussed the issue with the Independent Television Commission. We believe that the correct formulation is to protect the quality and range of programmes a regional service makes available to the ITV network. This includes the idea of a continuing capacity to provide programming, while still keeping reasonably close to the programmes viewers are actually able to see on the network. We intend to bring forward at Third Reading a government amendment which, while it may not reflect the wording of this amendment exactly, will mirror it closely and protect levels of programming made

421
available to the network by Channel 3 companies. I very much hope that this will provide the assurance that the noble Lord seeks.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response and, in reliance on it, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 57, line 21, leave out from ("service") to ("a") in line 22 and insert ("having regard to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe we now know that, as a result of the Minister's very careful explanation during Committee stage, Clause 66 was introduced into the Bill—the noble Lord accordingly received suitable congratulations—to ensure that the ITC can protect the regional character of the independent television system. This clause enables the ITC to amend regional Channel 3 licences, following a change of control, to ensure that the regional character of the service is not diminished.
Clause 66 also allows the ITC to place additional requirements on a licensee if, for example, it appears to the commission that the merger would be prejudicial to the quality or range of regional programmes or would result in a significant reduction in either the amount of regional programmes, or the use of offices or studios in that particular region. In addition, it safeguards those obligations which were undertaken by Channel 3 licensees at the time that the licences were awarded.
It is vital to the valued regional character of independent television that such obligations should not be diluted by merger or acquisition. However, in my view there are limitations inherent in the clause as it stands. Certain restrictions are placed on the circumstances in which the ITC can act which I believe are prejudicial to viewers' interests.
At the heart of Clause 66 is the concept that any change in control should not be prejudicial to the regional service. However, subsection (4) of that clause limits the actual interpretation of "prejudicial" to represent only "a significant reduction" in the regional service. It is surely the case that the definition of "prejudicial" must be allowed to capture a wider set of circumstances. It is difficult to anticipate what effect future mergers may have. There may well be repercussions which do not fit the label of "significant reduction" but are nonetheless unwelcome. In my view, the regulator ought not to be fettered in such a way, but should be allowed flexibility to apply his reasoned judgment on a case-by-case basis. It is on that basis that I move this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in this amendment, which is one of the more important amendments seeking to strengthen Clause 66. The noble Lord has rehearsed the arguments pretty thoroughly. My own feeling is that the phrase "significant reduction", which is on the face of the Bill at present, is too high a hurdle for the ITC to perform its responsibilities in this matter. It implies that the change
422
of service will need to be a fairly major one before the ITC can act, otherwise it might he vulnerable to legal challenge. Moreover, no such hurdle is applied to the aspects of the service referred to in subsection (3) of the clause. For that reason the elimination of the phrase "significant reduction" and the insertion of the words proposed in the amendment will he a very significant and necessary strengthening of the purposes of this clause.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, this amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 141A, which is in my name, because it is connected with the same subject matter. However, with the leave of the House, I do not propose to move my amendment as the wording of Amendment No. 141 is preferable to my own.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in considering these matters I understand that those promoting the amendment are seeking to remove the provision that the ITC must perceive a threat to regionality by foreseeing a significant reduction in regional programming or the use of regional personnel and resources in order to vary the licence conditions to protect them. It is replaced by a provision which will require the commission simply to perceive a threat to regionality, and that is defined in terms of hours of regional programming or the use of regional personnel and resources.
I understand that the noble Lords are seeking to prevent the ITC having to make a judgment which may be challenged about whether and when a new controller may attempt to run down the regional services. However, what concerns me is that I do not believe that the amendment, as proposed, makes its position any less open to challenge. If anything, it makes a challenge more likely because it is less transparent. I do not quite understand how we can see a change as being prejudicial to regionality in terms of these things unless we see grounds for expecting a reduction to occur.
There are concrete, measurable aspects of regionality. It still seems to me appropriate, in spite of the noble Lord's persuasive arguments, to refer to a likely reduction in them as a trigger for the commission to act. Indeed, it seems logical to say that a threatened reduction is the trigger because the protective licence variation which meets the threat is likely to take the form of requirements in terms of the numbers of hours of programming or the percentage of personnel involved. I hope that I have explained the Government's attitude to Amendment No. 141.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, does not propose to move Amendment No. 141 A, which seems to us to be a helpful amendment. We agree with it because, on reflection, a reduction is inherently sufficiently significant if it is such that it prejudices the regional character of the service. I am not entirely clear what the appropriate procedure is in these circumstances.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may intervene. In the Minister's response to my Amendment No. 141 he restated the

423
position that he outlined in Committee so I am not totally surprised. I shall withdraw my amendment at this stage and then leave the matter to the House.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 141A:
Page 57, line 22, leave out ("significant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was immensely impressed and persuaded by the Minister's speech on Amendment No. 141. As I have already spoken to Amendment No. 141A, I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may advise my noble friend the Minister that I, too, prefer Amendment No. 141A and hope that the House will agree to it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand that it is normal from the Dispatch Box for the Government to explain that they would like to take an amendment away to fine-tune the drafting. However, on this amendment, parliamentary counsel feel that nothing extra could possibly be done with it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 57, line 35, at end insert (", including those in positions which are designed to exercise editorial and management control of programmes in the areas,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is important that the commission should be satisfied that regional programmes will continue to be made by people who live in that region and who have a thorough knowledge and full understanding of the interests and the views of the people there. It is that combination of knowledge and relationship with viewers which ensures that regional productions identify with, and reflect, the genuine interests of the region.
I believe that the underlying idea was, and is, acceptable to the commission. Indeed, in Committee the Minister said on 13th February, at cols. 590 and 591 of Hansard, that he was also sympathetic to the idea but that it was probably encompassed within the wider concept of "making" a programme in what was then Clause 63(4)(b). However, the Minister promised that he would discuss the matter with the commission to see whether it would welcome clarification. The only question, therefore, is whether the amendment is necessary. In our submission, the amendment provides important clarification. I hope therefore that it will be acceptable to the Minister.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in Committee various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, proposed adding to subsection (4)(c) of the clause which provides for the protection of levels of use of regional employees and offices as an important facet of the licence holder's regionality. If I understood the provisions correctly, they were aimed at preventing a company following the letter of the provision by using regional employees but avoiding the spirit of the clause
424
and damaging regionality by not using those employees in posts where they would have an effect on the content and choice of programming.
As the noble Lord explained, the amendment is similarly intended to close that perceived loophole. I said in Committee that I would consider what might be done to strengthen the protection of regionality in subsection (4) and I have done so. I have also discussed the provision with the commission and found it sympathetic to the noble Lord's point. The Government therefore propose to table an amendment to Clause 66(4) on Third Reading similar in purpose and wording to that put forward by the noble Lord. In the light of that assurance, I hope very much that he will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has said I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 57, line 41, at end insert—
("(4A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (3) and (4), the Commission may also vary the licence, by a notice served on the licence holder, so as to give effect to any proposals made or assurances given in relation to or in connection with improving the service by the licence holder or by any person having or proposing to acquire control over the licence holder in connection with the relevant change of control.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand from the grouping and I assume that the Minister agrees—that is, if he has the same grouping, which is not always the case—that we are now considering Amendments Nos. 144 to 152, also taking in Amendment No. 155. It is on that basis—
Lord Inglewood:No.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, let us be clear. That is what I have in front of me.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there has been a rearrangement of the groupings. Amendment No. 155 should be grouped with the following group of amendments and not with Amendment No. 144 et cetera.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I hope that Amendment No. 155 will be taken separately.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I am always subject to the will of the House and I am delighted to agree with everyone else. My grouping included Amendment No. 155 with Amendment No. 144. But there you are. I am usually incompetent about these matters of fine detail—and about many other matters which are not of fine detail.
I must apologise to your Lordships—or continue to make some apology—because I tabled Amendment No. 148 in error. I was trying to refine Amendment No. 144 and did not mean to include Amendment No. 148 on the list. I apologise to both the Minister and your Lordships.

425
The Bill provides for circumstances in which stronger companies could develop within Channel 3 and so benefit the viewer. A consolidated, stronger system might well offer added benefits for regional programming and production as well as for shareholders. Indeed, there is a precedent. In 1993 the merger of Yorkshire Television and Tyne Tees Television resulted in a completely new sub-regional service for viewers broadcast from a new studio near Middlesbrough.
As I read the Bill, it would not be open to the ITC to secure such improvements for the viewer as a result or consequence of a merger similar to that I have just described. Under Clause 66(6) the ITC cannot vary the licence to include any additional requirements. In other words, the ITC can ensure that viewers do not lose an important regional element they already enjoy but it cannot go further whatever the merits of the case.
My amendment would enable viewers to share the benefits brought about by such a merger. The ITC should be given such powers to enable it to secure improvements to the regional service so that viewers, as well as shareholders, share the benefits of greater industrial and commercial strength. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, in view of the fact that Amendments Nos. 147 and 148 have been spoken to, I should point out to your Lordships that if Amendment No. 147 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 149, and that if Amendment No. 148 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 149 on that account also.
I should also indicate to your Lordships, for the purpose of clarification, that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is right. A note was circulated recently—it cannot have reached the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—saying that Amendment No. 155 is no longer grouped with this series of amendments. It will, in fact, be called separately.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, once again I am happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, in his amendment. As I have before me almost exactly the same brief as the noble Lord, I shall not take up time by repeating his arguments. He put the case clearly and forcefully. Amendment No. 144 is important. It gives the ITC the right to seek improvements when there are changes of control. I am happy to support it.
4 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government take the view that these amendments are unnecessary. In our view, Amendment No. 144 undesirably blurs the focus of Clause 66 on the key issue of protecting regional broadcasting which is the purpose of the clause.
If there are other issues relating to programming quality which the ITC wishes to consolidate in the licence, it can always resort to its general powers under Section 3(4) of the 1990 Act to vary the conditions of the licence if it wishes to do so. The new powers in Clause 66 are designed specifically to focus on something which is of particular importance at the time of a prospective takeover; namely, the possibility that
426
existing levels of regional programming over and above what is required may be jeopardised. There is specific reason to suppose that greater consolidation within ITV might otherwise lessen its regional character and therefore particular reason to concentrate relatively narrowly on the regional issues within Clause 66 as it is currently formulated.
As to enhanced licence conditions beyond existing performance, they should be possible only if they are entrenched with the new licence holder's consent. We believe that the amendments subtract from, rather than add to, the effectiveness of the clause. For those reasons, we cannot support them.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, this was a basic disagreement which existed across the Floor of the House at an earlier stage of the Bill. My view, which I have expressed via my amendment, is that Clause 66, although entirely desirable, as I said earlier—and I welcome its inclusion in the Bill—nevertheless needs to be strengthened because the issue of regionality must be embedded more firmly within the clause. Of course the Minister says that he will not give way on this issue. I do not intend to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 145 to 148 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 58, line 5, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 6 and insert ("relevant period").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 154. The amendments seek to establish that the existing quality and quantity of programmes, together with the infrastructure which provides for them, are the benchmark for any licence variation imposed by the ITC. If the benchmark is to be the level of existing services rather than a licence minimum, it is crucial that there is a fair definition of existing services.
The underlying principle behind the amendments is to ensure fairness to all parties who may be involved in a potential change of ownership. Hence the 12-month time period rather than a snapshot period; for instance, just before advance notice of a bid or at the time of change of control, which could enable the incumbent licence holder to raise the regional programming to an unrealistic level in the short term to deter a potential takeover. Such an action would be unfair and anti-competitive. I hope therefore that your Lordships will agree to the two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, this is one of the important amendments being proposed to strengthen the clause. The clause as it stands sets out the benchmark period for setting new licence conditions as the period in subsection (6):
"immediately before the relevant change of control".
That would mean that a regional service could be wound down to the minimum required by the licensee before the change of control takes place. The ITC could then be forced to accept the minimum provision.

427
If the Minister had been a little more forthcoming on the previous amendment—I am sorry that he was so negative with regard to the deletion of subsection (6)—that would have solved the problem. The positive step to take is the one proposed in the amendment; that is, that the proper benchmark should not be whatever is the snapshot, as the noble Lord described it, immediately before the change of control but the actual situation over a reasonable period. A reasonable period is a period of 12 months. Twelve months is in fact the usual period over which the ITC assesses programme performance, and so it is sufficiently long to allow for variations in the pattern of scheduling. I hope that we will receive a more positive response from the Minister on this amendment than on the previous one.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I hope that your Lordships will support it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, an amendment similar to this one was tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and I was not then sympathetic to it. I believed that there was a danger, in assessing the licence holder's performance over a 12-month period, rather than in the period "immediately before" a change of control, of failing to take account of the current position—the one from which the new controller would have to take the licence holder forward. I thought that if there had recently been a diminution in performance because of some outside factor, it would not be fair to require the new controller to achieve levels no longer achieved. Correspondingly, I thought that if there had recently been improvements to the regional service, assessment of a 12-month period might prevent their being consolidated in the licence.
However, I have given the matter further consideration and have discussed it with the ITC. It is not clear precisely how performance over 12 months would be assessed. Would the commission take as its reference point the peak of performance in the period, or the average, or take into account seasonal variations? In some ways that imprecision is also the strength of such a proposal. It allows the commission to look at performance over a year and judge what standard it would be fair, given all the circumstances, to preserve through varied licence conditions. I am now persuaded that allowing the commission to look at a 12-month period when assessing the performance of the licence holder will give it flexibility to set conditions which best reflect what should be expected of a new controller. I accept, in principle, my noble friend's amendment and the Government will bring forward its own amendment at Third Reading to include this provision.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
428
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 150 to 152 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 58, line 20, leave out from ("is") to end of line 22 and insert ("designed to be of particular interest to and to be first broadcast for persons living within the area for which the service is provided (or any part of it), and which complies with and is no less comprehensive than current directives issued by the Commission in accordance with its powers under this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, circumstances have changed since a regional programme was defined within Section 16 of the 1990 Act. There is a definition contained within the ITC's invitation to apply for a licence upon which the ITC has since expanded. It is my understanding that that may be updated in the near future.
However, I am told that the ITC recognises that an inadequate definition in the Bill is undesirable and believes that Section 4 of the 1990 Act can set down wider definitions as a condition of the licence. However, that has not been tested. Furthermore, I believe that new legislation should be clear and unambiguous. The purpose of the amendment is to encompass in legislation any definition directed by the ITC to ensure that there is no ambiguity or inconsistency. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is really about the definition of regional programmes under subsection (10). It occurs to many of us that the definition is inadequate and possibly defective. It is inadequate because the only criterion which has to be satisfied is that the programme should be:
"of particular interest to persons living within the area".
That pitches it pretty low. It may be defective as it does not address the position where there are well-defined territories within the television region which possess significantly different cultural identities. I am thinking of the HTV area in Wales and Bristol. It provides programmes for two separate and significantly different areas with different cultures and backgrounds. I believe that almost by definition some of the programmes will not be of interest to all the people living in that region. Amendment No. 153 seeks to correct the deficiency by inserting "any part" into the definition.
I am mindful of the fact that the Minister, who has been helpful and constructive throughout the stages of the Bill, has always placed an emphasis on the need to ensure that the commission has flexibility. He is against introducing too much rigidity into the Bill. We have taken full note of that advice. This definition offers the combination of a broad statutory definition while at the same time giving the commission the right to exercise its broad judgment and to define what it means in further directives. We believe that that combination is the best approach to the problem and it gives me great pleasure to support the amendment.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, I believe that the definition is far better than that contained in the Bill. I support the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have no quarrel with the basic purpose of this amendment. We are happy to consider further with the ITC how the definition of "regional programming" might be improved. We shall briefly set out here what seem to us to be the key considerations in the matter.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that not as much turns as it might on what falls within the definition of a "regional programme". This is because Clause 66(3)(b) also includes within the protection of the new ITC powers other programmes which contribute to the regional character of the service. Nevertheless, particularly as regards measuring the extent to which regional programmes are made within the region, it is important that the definition of "regional programme" is right.
It seems to us that this amendment is probably on the right lines in including both a general statement of the principle of what a regional programme is, which appears on the face of the statute and cannot be tinkered with, and a capacity for the ITC in applying the Act to interpret that general provision in detail. Our two principal reservations about the precise formulation put forward in the amendment are as follows. First, we wonder whether it is necessary to specify that a programme cannot be regional unless it is first broadcast for persons living within the licence area. This does not seem to us to be of the essence in the same way as it is crucial that the programme is designed to be of particular interest to persons living within the licence area. It is an essentially contingent factor which would normally apply to a regional programme but on occasion may not, because the programme is in fact also of particular interest to people in an adjacent region or regions or, exceptionally, is, while being incontestably regional, shown more widely on the network. This seems to us to be the kind of issue which the ITC should be free to interpret in detail. Our second reservation concerns the need to make clear that the ITC's power of interpretation is subordinate to the general terms of the definition in the Act. The amendment as drafted places the ITC on a par with Parliament in determining what is regional and we are not sure that that is quite right.
Nevertheless, as I have said, the Government are happy to consider this further with a view to bringing forward an amendment of their own at the earliest stage. I hope that in view of that assurance my noble friend will agree to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He confirmed that he intends to bring forward an amendment, perhaps better drafted, at Third Reading in order to deal with this matter. On that assumption, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill Lord Kirkhill moved Amendment No. 155:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
CHANNEL 3 LICENCE CONDITIONS
(".—(1) Section 20 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (6)(b) there is inserted—
"(c) may vary the licence so as to include such conditions relating to the matters specified in subsections (3) and (4) of section 21(A) as they consider appropriate.".
(3) After subsection (8)(b) there is inserted—
"(c) the condition to be included in the licence under subsection (6)(c).".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the amendment is now in its appropriate place in the Marshalled List. I have tabled the amendment because I believe that the ITC should be able to take into account all the factors cited on the clause when a Channel 3 licence is renewed and not merely at the point of change in control. It is again an opportunity to underpin the regional flavour of the ITV system. Such an opportunity will be fulfilled where the regulator is able to make renewal subject to the licence holder accepting conditions to safeguard or, as appropriate, to enhance the regional character of the service. That is an extremely important point. The amendment makes provision for that possibility, and I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not keen on the amendment. It appears to grant a draconian power to the ITC which, on reflection, your Lordships might not think wholly appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will not persist with the amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, Clause 66 of this Bill seeks to introduce a new part, Section 21A, to the Broadcasting Act 1990 which prevents any diminution in the range and quality of regionality in a Channel 3 service where there is a change of control in the licence holder. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, seeks in this amendment to extend that protection where a licence is renewed so that, where the current licence holder is performing in excess of what his licence requires in terms of the amount and quality of regional programmes he provides, it can be made a condition of his licence being renewed that he continues to perform at this higher level. The noble Lord proposed a similar amendment in Committee and I have, as I said I would, reflected on that proposal and discussed the issue with the Independent Television Commission.
The commission would ideally like to have such a power because current licence holders regularly outperform licence requirements in the area of regionality, and it seems prudent, in anticipating the changes which the relaxation of media ownership controls we are proposing generally in the Bill will bring, to preserve such overperformance for the benefit of viewers. However, we must consider not only what is prudent but what is fair. Clause 66 is fair because it seeks to guard against any attempt to run down regional services by a company with no previous track record for that region. But the renewal proposed by the noble Lord seeks rather to penalise the good will of the current

431
licence holders by saying, "You have been doing more than you promised, so now you must make a more onerous promise".
The commission agreed licence conditions with the current licence holders of Channel 3, an agreement formed when the licences were bid for and awarded. I do not believe that it would be right for us suddenly to change that agreement to take advantage of the fact that licence holders see it as in their interests to provide a good range of regional services. And as I said in Committee, if we are to agree that we may reasonably ask licence holders to accept more onerous conditions on renewal where their performance has shown that they can achieve them, is it right that regionality should be singled out? Should we not also seek to consolidate performance in children's programmes or in original drama, for example? While I sympathise with the noble Lord's intentions, I believe that in accepting this amendment we would be in danger of discouraging our current licence holders from striving to achieve the best regional service they can in any given period by threatening that they will be required to maintain that level ever afterwards.
The noble Lord will be aware that the Government have looked carefully at which might be done further to strengthen Clause 66 so that a change of control cannot interfere with the high quality of regional programming that viewers of Channel 3 now enjoy. I am sure that the noble Lord will be disappointed by what I have had to say, but I hope that he will accept that we are committed to this issue and, in the light of our considered view that the current licence holders know where their best interests lie on this subject and that it would be unhelpful to meet their good will and commercial common sense with unnecessary post hoc regulation, he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I shall withdraw the amendment but perhaps, first I may place on record the fact that the Minister and I have been over this ground before. I do not consider that a particularly onerous condition to impose upon the various companies. At present, they are not doing much beyond the minimum. They plead that they are, but if one analyses what they do it is not much more than the minimum. Past experience shows that unless Parliament, in its wisdom, makes a firm regulatory system effective it becomes so flexible that the true intent of Parliament is obstructed. There is every possibility that the good spirit behind Clause 66 may in reality not have the effect for which we hope. That said, I formally beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 156:
After Clause 66, insert the following new clause—
(" . —(1) Section 45 of the 1990 Act is amended as follows.
(2) After section (9) there is inserted—
"(10) A licence to provide a non-domestic satellite service shall include conditions requiring the licence holder to pay to the Commission (in addition to any fees required to be so paid by virtue
432
of section 45(1)(b)) in respect of each accounting period of his falling within the period for which the licence is in force such amount as the Commission may determine representing a percentage of the qualifying revenue for that accounting period.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in exactly the same terms as the one that I moved at Committee stage. I have tabled it again, first, because of the importance of the principle and issue that lie behind it and, secondly, because there was limited time at the Committee stage to discuss it and I wished to give your Lordships the opportunity to examine the issue again.
The purpose behind the amendment is clear from its wording. It is to try to establish a fairer basis of taxation for all those who compete in the commercial broadcasting field; that is, to put the satellite and cable broadcasters on the same footing as the terrestrial commercial broadcasters. In arguing the matter at Committee stage, the Minister based his argument on what I thought was a mistaken premise. He argued that BSkyB, as the principal satellite broadcaster, was outside the fiscal jurisdiction of this country because the frequencies that it used were on an international basis, whereas the terrestrial frequencies are a national asset under the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's Government.
I sought to argue from a different basis—that of the ordinary television viewers. When they watch a BSkyB programme or a programme from any of the other satellite operators, or watch terrestrial programmes, they simply see television as contributing to the general entertainment and instruction of British people. Satellite broadcasters have, through their own enterprise, now had a perhaps justified tax-free holiday. However, I thought that the time had come to put them on the same footing as other commercial competitors. That is what lies behind my amendment.
I do not want to labour the point when we wish to make as much progress as possible. However, I use the occasion to make an additional point which arose out of our discussions on Tuesday. It is the role that BSkyB plays in financing original programming. Speaking as a former regulator of broadcasting, I would be more in favour of funding from BSkyB going to the provision of original programming. If there has to be a choice I would prefer it to go there rather than to the provision of revenue for the Treasury.
I offer the Minister a possible fallback position, if he wishes to take advantage of it. If he refuses to accept the case for fiscal fairness then he should at least accept the case for greater fairness in the promotion of original programmes. The Minister sought to tell us on Tuesday that he believed that the record of original programme-making for BSkyB was creditable. He used language that indicated that it at least matched the original programming of Channel 4. Since Tuesday's debate, therefore, I have taken the opportunity to look at the figures. The figure for original programming for Channel 4 in 1995 was £194 million, 85 per cent. of its total programme budget. The figure for BSkyB's programmes that it provides is £150 million. However, that £150 million consists largely, I am told, of sporting rights. We have argued about them separately. In my definition, that does not count as original creative

433
programming at all. The truth is that so far BSkyB has done little, if anything, to provide any original children's programmes, situation comedies or original drama.
If the Government are unwilling to establish a basis of fair taxation, then in the terms about which we argued on Tuesday for a fair proportion of original programming as part of the obligation of being a broadcaster in this country, they ought to use their influence to persuade BSkyB greatly to improve its record. I beg to move.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish to speak briefly but strongly in favour of what my noble friend Lord Thomson said. When we discussed the matter previously it was striking that what the Minister described was the hypothetical "legalese" position of satellite. What the noble Lord, Lord Thomson described is the reality that this is a major UK television performer. In terms of fair fiscality, it should be treated accordingly.
I was also pleased to hear the figures from the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. Those quoted by the Minister recently immediately created astonishment on this side and incredulity as well as astonishment in the outside broadcasting world. I wish to give the maximum support to my noble friend.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, set out his reasons for the amendment when it was debated in Committee. I must tell him at the outset that the Government's position has not changed since then. I appreciate that it is not one which the noble Lord accepts, but I am grateful for his helpful comments about programming, on which I shall reflect further.
I wish briefly to reiterate the Government's position. As I made clear in Committee, BSkyB does not operate on a frequency which is allocated by international agreement to United Kingdom control. The Astra satellite on which BSkyB broadcasts uses spectrum allocated to Luxembourg and it is for the Luxembourg authorities to determine the payments for the use of that spectrum. As I made clear, it is our understanding that payments are made to the Luxembourg Government by the owners of the Astra satellite. We are sure that the payments will be reflected in the payments BSkyB makes for the use of the Astra satellite.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, explained in Committee and reiterated this afternoon that the ITV companies and BSkyB function—BSkyB not entirely, but principally—in the domestic market place. He argued that therefore they should receive equality of taxation. However, as companies operating in this country they work under identical rules applied by the Inland Revenue and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. The government amendments, accepted on Tuesday, equalised the level of fines which the ITC can levy on all its licensees for breaching those licences. That will enable the ITC to treat all its licensees, including non-domestic satellite services, on an equal footing.
The sole difference between ITV and non-domestic satellite operators is the simple fact that—I do not believe that it is hypothetical, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, tried to suggest—Channel 3 licensees
434
pay moneys to the Exchequer for their franchises which reflect the use they are given of a scarce UK resource; that is, the UK spectrum from which they profit. It is not a tax on their operation; it is a fee for the use of the spectrum. Non-domestic satellite operators, by definition, do not use UK spectrum and so the UK Government are not in a position to charge a fee for the use of that spectrum. I hope that that makes the Government's position on the matter quite clear.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will be kind enough to clarify one matter. BSB used to operate on a domestic spectrum but when Sky bought BSB out it sold that domestic spectrum to foreign broadcasters. Therefore, while BSkyB broadcasts from Luxembourg, is it not a fact that it owns property in frequencies which it sells to foreign broadcasters? That means that the difference between domestic and non-domestic is not as sharp as outlined by the Minister.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall respond to the noble Lord. The noble Lord is obviously familiar with the detail of the matter hut, on the basis that he described, it seems to me that one of the component elements which formed BSkyB—BSB—had some UK spectrum. If anyone has the rights to UK spectrum and then sells that spectrum, to use the words of the noble Lord, it must follow that he ceases to have any property in that particular spectrum. If you divest yourself of something, you then cease to have any property in the item which you have disposed of. I do not think that the proposition as advanced by the noble Lord takes the argument any further in the direction that he desires.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and was much interested in it. When the matter is examined, I believe that it will be discovered that the noble Lord is factually absolutely right. The original BSB operation did not depend on domestic frequencies; it depended on satellite frequencies for a British geo-stationary satellite on the position in the stratosphere that had been allocated to the British Government by international agreement.
In that sense, the loophole that Sky television has been able to take advantage of on the basis of the ingenuity of its predecessors was to go to another bit of the international spectrum, so to speak. That is the reality of the situation. The remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, greatly undermine what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, called the hypothetical basis—although I believe that he partly meant theoretical—of the Government's proposition. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, has greatly weakened the base of the Government's argument.
I retabled the amendment today as a matter of principle. I did not expect the Government to reveal any change of position on the matter, and I do not wish to take up any more time on the issue. However, I can assure the Minister without any rancour that it will not go away. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

435
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Funding of Sianel Pedwar Cymru]:
Lord Prys-Davies Lord Prys-Davies moved Amendment No. 156A:
Page 58, leave out lines 36 to 39 and insert—
("(1) The Secretary of State shall, for the year 1998 and each subsequent year, pay to the Welsh Authority at the beginning of the relevant year an amount representing the prescribed amount as increased by the appropriate percentage.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 158 to 161. It will take me just a few minutes to try to do justice to these five important amendments which deal with the future funding mechanism of S4C, which is, if I may say so, fundamentally altered by Clause 67. I should point out that in tabling the amendments I rely heavily on advice from the S4C officers and those who advise them. They have also had valuable consultations with the Minister's department. If the Minister cannot agree to the five amendments this evening, I very much hope that he will take them away and consult with his advisers.
There are three main elements in the group. The first is to be found in Amendment No. 156A which would merely remove any doubt that there may be as to the date when the payment is to be made: it is to be made "at the beginning" of the year. Without those words, the payment could be made in instalments during the passage of the year. I am advised that there is a precedent for that wording in Section 61(2) of the 1990 Act. I hope that the department will look graciously at the amendment.
The second element is to be found in Amendment No. 158. It provides that the right starting point is the sum of £73.3 million. That figure is to be found in the published estimates of the department for 1997. Obviously that would be indexed, but the knowledge that that is the starting point would give S4C a reliable basis for planning its future. The officers of S4C have a sound confidence in that figure.
The third element is to be found in Amendment No. 160. Its purpose is to include in the funding during the transitional period the cost to be incurred by S4C of promoting the new digital service. S4C believe that there should be such an additional provision. I shall briefly explain the reasons for it.
The multiplex operator may decide, understandably, not to give the highest priority to promoting a digital service to 500,000 Welsh speakers, three-quarters of whom live outside the heavily populated south-east corner of Wales often in the poorer parts of Wales, and many of whom are elderly. I believe that it is prudent to fear that the needs of that audience may not rank high in the priorities of the multiplex operator.
The second reason for Amendment No. 160 is that S4C, not unnaturally being a Welsh language television service, wants to ensure that the promotion of the digital service to Welsh speakers is undertaken through the medium of the Welsh language. S4C considers that to
436
be of paramount importance. I believe that the concerns of S4C which are reflected in Amendment No. 160, and which I have sought to express, are entirely legitimate.
Finally, if Amendment No. 158 were accepted, obviously subsection (3) of the clause would become redundant and Amendment No. 161 would be consequential. I very much hope that the Minister will say that he is prepared, once again, to give careful consideration to the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the amendment so clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. I shall try not to go over the ground that the noble Lord covered but, although they are grouped together, the amendments fall fundamentally into two groups. The first three amendments relate to the so-called "prescribed amount" for 1997 upon which the future funding of S4C entirely depends. The Bill provides for that prescribed amount in subsequent years to be increased in line with the retail prices index. Hitherto, S4C's funding has been geared to total terrestrial advertising revenue and past experience suggests that that is likely to rise more rapidly in the future than the RPI. That is the reason for S4C's fear that it will receive less funding in the future than it does under the present system.
The noble Lord clearly explained what lies behind the first three amendments; namely, to insert a figure of £73.3 million as the prescribed amount for 1997. That is the figure that appears in the department's own published spending estimates. That figure would then form the basis of the prescribed amount for 1998. I should emphasise the concern expressed by the noble Lord that it is most important that the department should stick to its present practice and pay the amount due each year on 1st January—that would be 1st January 1998 and subsequent years. That would enable S4C to earn some interest on deposit which would go some way to help it maintain its present analogue service.
Amendments Nos. 160 and 161 relate to the Secretary of State's power under the Bill to increase the prescribed amount if he is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so having regard to the cost of transmitting a new digital service. The amendments would give him power, in addition, to have regard to the cost of promoting the new service to S4C's viewers in Wales and encouraging them to invest in the required equipment. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has given two compelling reasons why this is so important, especially for S4C, and I shall not repeat them. I think we must be working from the same Welsh text. My noble friend Lord Inglewood has shown great sympathy towards S4C throughout our discussions. I hope that he will look favourably on these amendments.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I speak without the expertise of either of the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Prys-Davies. However, speaking from the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats I wish to make it clear that we strongly support the case that has been made so persuasively and so thoroughly by both the noble Lords who have spoken. I speak, of course, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Geraint.

437
I have said on earlier occasions that the Welsh fourth channel, S4C, is a remarkable achievement in public broadcasting. It is perhaps even more remarkable in its way than the fourth channel itself, which we shall discuss in a moment or two, because apart from being a great broadcasting achievement S4C was also a great political achievement. It ought to be properly cherished because of the special role of the Welsh language within the Welsh nation. In those circumstances it is rather worrying that the new formula, as proposed, appears to provide a disadvantageous base line for the funding of S4C compared with its previous position. It would result in S4C being less well off—as I understand it—than under the original estimates of the Department of National Heritage.
Given what we know about the broadcasting advertising market, I am not quite sure why the Government felt it would be an advantage to S4C to move from an advertising-based formula to an RPI-based formula. All the experience of commercial broadcasting over recent years—indeed of broadcasting generally—has shown that the RPI of broadcasting tends to be significantly higher than the general RPI for the nation as a whole. S4C is right to be concerned about that aspect of the matter. We await with interest the Minister's remarks on the case that has been put so strongly by both noble Lords who have spoken on this matter.
As regards the other amendments which relate to the future digital provision, here again it is fair to say that Wales is a special case in that there is a political dimension to these issues—over and above the purely broadcasting dimension—which needs to be taken into account by the Government in seeking to ensure that the scattered Welsh-speaking population in the remoter areas of Wales will be able to enjoy the benefits of the diversity of digital broadcasting when that is provided. S4C had political origins rather than broadcasting origins. The Government would be wise to take careful note of those anxieties.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and my noble friend Lord Aberdare have most clearly and helpfully set out the rationale for these amendments. I have explained to your Lordships' House on previous occasions the case for moving to an RPI-based formula. I am glad that this approach is implicitly accepted in the noble Lord's remarks in proposing the amendment. The issue which the amendment specifically addresses concerns the precise base figure to be used and the amounts of money involved.
We believe that in changing from one formula to another the fairest approach is that the base figure on which the Bill's provision is indexed is the last payment under the 1990 Act formula. Therefore Clause 67 of the Bill provides that in the amended Sections 61(2) and (3) what is defined as the "prescribed amount"—that is, the base figure for the new formula—should be the amount paid by the Secretary of State to the Welsh Authority for the year 1997 under the 1990 Act.
438
We do not believe that S4C's predictions for total national advertising revenues for 1996—we are only some two months into the year—should lead the department now to commit itself to paying the maximum provision we have taken to meet our current statutory obligations. This provision may, of course, be an overestimate—it would be wrong to budget on any other than a prudent basis—and does not necessarily represent the actual amount of meeting the current statutory obligation which must be the proper basis for any future arrangement. Of course I fully recognise S4C's desire to have a firmer basis on which to plan future funding and to achieve as much money as it can. However, the Government do not accept the case for the amendments which have been tabled.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has explained that Amendment No. 156A is intended to retain the current system whereby S4C receives its statutory funding in a single lump sum every January. It will probably not surprise the noble Lord that we are not keen to continue a system which arose from what was, candidly, an error in the 1990 Act. S4C is almost unique in government in receiving Exchequer payments at the beginning of the year rather than being drawn down on the basis of need throughout the year. We therefore intend to restore S4C's funding to the system that was originally envisaged, and that is consistent with prudent financial management of public spending.
Amendment No. 160 would allow the public funding provided for S4C to be increased in respect of expenditure necessary to promote and encourage the acquisition of digital receivers by viewers in Wales. As your Lordships know, multiplex licences will be awarded to applicants whose proposals for investment in the transmission infrastructure and for encouraging the take-up of receivers at least meet the minimum requirements established by the ITC. In this respect, assuming that S4C were to accept the guaranteed place being offered to it on the multiplex carrying Channels 3 and 4, S4C would need to contribute to the costs of meeting each of those requirements.
The funding arrangements in the Bill already allow for some extra provision with regard to the first part—that is, transmission costs. This is in line with the position in the 1990 Act. S4C will also, of course, be able to use its public funding to meet the costs of broadcasting S4C Digital, including measures to promote receiver take-up which will be taken forward in partnership with the other broadcasters on the multiplex. But I cannot see why S4C should be given any extra funding to meet these other costs which other broadcasters, including the BBC, will need to meet from their existing sources of revenue. It seems to me that there is a line to be drawn with regard to what might legitimately be seen as an extra call on taxpayers' money. It is a line which is sensibly drawn with transmission on one side and all the costs of mounting a digital service on the other.
I wish to emphasise that we have had a useful and constructive debate with S4C. I appreciate that the remarks that I have just made may be disappointing

439
to S4C. However, I hope that what may be perceived as a disappointing reply will not in any way get in the way of continuing the debate that we have had hitherto.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. Clearly it was a considered reply. His words will be studied carefully by the officials of S4C and their advisers. However, I believe the Minister left the door open to the possibility of S4C having further discussions with the department to see whether it can meet some of the Minister's anxieties. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 157 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 158 to 161 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Application of excess revenues of Channel Four Television Corporation]:
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 60, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) After subsection (3) there is inserted—
"( ) The percentage stated in subsections (1)(a) and (3)(a) of this section shall be zero for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for rising time after time. The Minister kindly indicated to me that once I had moved this amendment there might be something he would like to say to your Lordships before the rest of the debate takes place. We live in hope and look forward to that. I hope it will meet the convenience of other Members of your Lordships' House that that should take place.
In that spirit I wanted to say before I move this amendment how grateful we are for the decision of the Government, announced at the Committee stage at col. 622 of Hansard, to cap at an appropriate level the statutory reserve fund of Channel 4. This should have the welcome effect of releasing significantly more funds to Channel 4 to spend on programmes. Whatever arguments we have in a moment about other timetables for dealing with Channel 4, I hope the Minister might be able to confirm that this welcome capping and the release of these funds could take place once this Bill has become an Act of Parliament and need not await the end of 1997.
The amendment seeks to take account of the various views that were expressed in the debate at Committee stage. It seeks to offer what I hope will be regarded as a constructive and conciliatory compromise between those of us who felt that the right course was to abolish the existing funding formula for Channel 4 after the end of 1997 and let it stand on its own feet as it wishes to do. The view of the Government and, I am bound to say, of the ITC is that the special remit of Channel 4 in a much more competitive world may still require a statutory safety net.
This amendment seeks to end the subsidy from Channel 4 to the Channel 3 companies, the ITV companies, from the beginning of 1998, the date which is already in the 1990 Act when a change can be made. It also seeks to maintain the position in which neither Channel 4 will subsidise the ITV companies, nor, indeed, will Channel 3 subsidise Channel 4 in any way if circumstances change during these years until the end of the current ITV franchise period in the year 2002. By that time the future of digital television will be at least a little clearer than it is at present. It is always dangerous to forecast the future, but there may very well be proof one way or the other of how robust the rather special Channel 4 remit, with its audience limitations, is in attracting revenue in a multi-channel, multi-competitive broadcasting age.
I recognise that the Government's present Clause 69, and indeed the position of the ITC, would allow the formula I have in my amendment to be implemented by the Government from 1998 onwards, if that was the Government's will. But I think there are great advantages in seeking now to put this formula for the funding on the face of the Bill. It will provide certainty for both Channel 4 and the ITV companies from the moment the amendment is passed and prevent the continuing bad blood that there has been between them over this issue becoming a running sore within the independent television system for the years that lie ahead. That is the main thrust of the arguments behind the amendment that I have moved.
Without going over the ground that we covered in the Committee stage, perhaps I may make one or two additional comments about the background. It is wholly understandable that recipients of subsidy resist giving up that subsidy. That is, of course, the position of the ITV companies. They resist giving up the subsidy as stubbornly as the Treasury has been resisting giving up any possible loss of revenue from a sensible reform of the broadcasting system. However, the figures show conclusively that by the end of 1997 the ITV companies will have received in the first five years of their franchise more than they ever estimated in their bids they would have received over a period of 10 years. If at the end of 1997 the grotesqueries of the bidding system leave any individual company short of its 10-year forecast, then, as those of your Lordships who followed the Committee stage of the Bill know, Channel 4 has undertaken to reimburse them.
I do not think that it can seriously be argued in any sort of equity that an enterprising company like Carlton Television, for example, with profits of £122 million should go on receiving a £22 million subsidy from a minority channel. The concern about these matters, as so often, has been particularly concentrated by the big TV companies on what they profess to believe to be the interests of the smaller regional TV companies. It is, of course, familiar to all in your Lordships' House that hard cases make the best persuasive arguments. It is a pretty fallacious argument.
We have been arguing the interests of the smaller regional companies very vigorously this afternoon and the Government have recognised that in Clause 66. The smaller regional companies for the most part, although

441
there may be an occasional exception, receive a comparatively small amount of Channel 4 advertising revenue, and fortunately in the present circumstances most of them are pretty profitable these days.
That quite apart, some of the larger ITV companies have been using the argument to their weaker brethren, and using it to those of us who may be more gullible in your Lordships' House, that if the ITV companies are to be left without this ongoing subsidy from Channel 4, then this will put the present charging in the network system at risk and may prevent the regional companies from having the resources to fulfil their regional obligations. It has been put forward by Granada Television—that well-known hotel company that now has a television company as well—that its regional programming might be somewhat cut back if there had to be all these changes. It is a totally bogus and slightly disreputable argument, because both the network discount arrangements and even more positively the regional programming arrangements are written into the licences of the larger television companies. Neither the network discount nor the regional programming arrangements can be damaged or reduced except with the consent of the ITC. For my part, I am ready to recognise that the ITC is a totally adequate watchdog in these matters provided it gets the reinforcement of a decent Broadcasting Bill.
It is for all these reasons that I put before your Lordships' House this compromise amendment on the future of the financial arrangements between Channel 4 and the ITV companies. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word before my noble friend replies. I am a little confused. When the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, rose I was under the impression that he would move an amendment very briefly and that my noble friend the Minister would reply and give him something. While I hate to disturb the cosy relationship which appears to exist between them, I should like to grab the opportunity—I do not have many—to say that there is a sensible provision in the 1990 Act. That is the one that we now seek to change. I hope that I am wrong, and I hope that my noble friend will not make too great a compromise in the direction of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
5 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. At this stage in the debate I hope to make a few points which may be for the convenience of the House. I do not wish to curtail the debate, but I should like to make a contribution which may be helpful to those who follow me in the debate. Speaking as I do from the Dispatch Box, I hope that that will be a constructive way of approaching the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, explained that his amendments to Clause 69 aim to provide by statute that Channel 4 should make no payments either to the Channel 3 companies or to the statutory reserve for the years from 1998 to 2002; and that no order to alter that regime may be made before the end of the year 2001.
442
It is, of course, an implicit element of the noble Lord's amendments that the funding formula would remain in place. That is in line with the Government's approach. We have made clear that we want to retain the formula as a prudential measure, but to operate it with flexibility so that Channel 4 can retain significantly more of its revenue for programmes.
A key word here is "flexibility". We do not think it right to seek to determine at this stage the possible level of Channel 4 payments to Channel 3 companies two years or more from now. Nor is it, in our view, wise to rule out all possibility of further adjustment, either to those payments or to the payment of funds to the reserve, in the years up to and including 2002. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the need for flexibility in response to fast-moving developments in the broadcasting sector. The Government accordingly oppose the specific amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has tabled.
As to timing, the noble Lord's amendment proposes changes to Channel 4 payments into the reserve and to the Channel 3 companies to take effect from 1998. I see no need to perpetuate Channel 4's payments into the reserve until 1998. At over £80 million the reserve represents a significant safeguard against a downturn in income. To respond to the noble Lord's particular anxiety, the Government's intention is accordingly to present an order to terminate Channel 4's future payments into the reserve shortly after enactment, to take effect as soon as possible.
The timing of adjustments to Channel 4's payments to Channel 3 is arguably more complicated. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, proposes that new arrangements should come into effect from the start of 1998. That is the assumption underlying his earlier "gap year" amendment to which I have referred. It is also clear that it is a general expectation of the ITV companies that any new formula would come into effect from early 1998. The Government are not averse in principle to introducing changes from that date.
However, there is an alternative argument that no change should be introduced affecting any payment before the one to be made a year later, at the start of 1999. That is because Section 26(10) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 specifies that no order to amend the specified elements of the funding formula may be made before the end of 1997. Taking account of the lead times inherent in the formula, that would mean that the form of the formula contained in the 1990 Act would continue to apply until the end of 1998. If one follows that logic ruthlessly, the so-called "gap year" ceases to exist. Of course, the amendments which we propose do not apply to the specific elements in the 1990 Act formula to which I have referred, and there is no formal constraint. Nevertheless, the argument can he made that, based on the precise terms of the 1990 Act, any change to the funding formula should not affect payments before the one to be made at the beginning of 1999.
There is a balance to be struck here. On the one hand, the Government accept the concern that Channel 4's payments into the reserve and to Channel 3 have been higher than expected when the 1990 Act went through

443
Parliament, and that early action should be taken to correct that. On the other hand, we recognise concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, and widely echoed in the Chamber, at the prospect of a significant drop in Channel 3 companies' income from Channel 4 in the immediate run-up to digital investment and a year before they are able under the 1990 Act to apply to the ITC to renegotiate their licences. We must also remember that the payments under the formula are paid in the February of the year following the year for which they are calculated. It thus follows that the payment in respect of the year 1997 is paid in early 1998, and if there is a "gap year" in terms of cash flow in a calendar year, it can more accurately be said to be 1993, which was the year in which the Channel 4 arrangements in the Act came into effect, since no payments were made in respect of that year until 1994.
The Government's proposition is that we should proceed by a phased approach, which would seek to meet the interests both of the Channel 3 companies and of Channel 4. As a first step, we should seek to make an order on enactment to end Channel 4 payments into the statutory reserve with immediate effect. To put that into perspective, Channel 4's payment into the reserve for 1995 was £37 million. If our proposed order is agreed, the effect will be that in respect of the payment relating to 1996 and later years Channel 4 will have more revenue to apply to programmes. In effect, the gain as against earlier expectations will be equivalent to two years' payments into the reserve.
As a second step, we propose to introduce reductions to Channel 4 payments to Channel 3 in two phases. The first reduction would take effect from 1998; the second would take effect from 1999. It is too early to say what the new levels would be, but we have indicated that we expect significant adjustment in Channel 4's favour, and we are taking powers which would in principle enable us—if we so judge nearer the time and Parliament agrees—to reduce Channel 4 payments to Channel 3 to zero from 1999. Whatever the final level, there would be a stepped reduction towards it from 1998.
We believe that that phased approach will help to cushion the impact on Channel 3 companies of a reduction in their funding from Channel 4. At the same time, it should prove significantly positive in net terms to Channel 4, not least because uncovenanted gains from early capping of the reserve are likely to outweigh any phased payment to the Channel 3 companies in 1998.
I hope that that fairly full explanation of the Government's thinking has proved helpful. It is intended to find a way forward which is fair to all concerned.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, before the Minister spoke I had intended to say how strongly I support the amendments. How much happier I am to rise and say that what the Minister said is enormously encouraging. I hope that after the very helpful things that he said he will not think it churlish of me to remind him that the ITC view is that the funding should come down to zero from the beginning of 1998, exactly as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in his amendments. I confess that that is what I would have preferred. Since
444
it is also what the ITC recommends, and since it is very much up in the air how the phased reduction in payments will work, I urge the Minister to consider very carefully whether he will not take the advice of the ITC and make the amount so small by the end of 1997 and the beginning of 1998 as to make no difference whatever.
When I said that I hoped that the noble Lord would not think me churlish I was simply going to say that the ITC is, after all, the generally acknowledged watchdog in this area of communications. I intended to remind him of the old adage that one should not keep a dog and bark oneself.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on coming up with a very ingenious solution. It seems to me that he has gone a long way to solving the conundrum which was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, in discussion on an earlier amendment in relation to the gap of a year between the Channel 4 funding finishing and the ITV companies renegotiating their licences. My noble friend has come up with an ingenious solution. I think he is entirely right. We cannot tinker with any part of the formula without considering the problem as a whole, which he has done. It is an extremely good solution. I recommend it to your Lordships. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, will feel able to withdraw his amendment as a result of my noble friend's announcement.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister gave an indication earlier that he would surprise the House with something that he might say with regard to the amendment. He has duly done so. However, one point worries me. The Minister may not be able to answer the question at present. What will be the balance as regards release of moneys to Channel 4 between the uncapping of the statutory reserve a year earlier and the moneys which the ITV companies will still receive from Channel 4?
I agree with my noble friend that everything the Minister said seems extremely helpful. We shall have to consider the matter more carefully when we see it in writing. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. It may be necessary to return to the issue at Third Reading, although it may not be traditional so to do.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is a shock to be suddenly faced with new proposals. They are encouraging in some ways. But they are not the whole story. Channel 4 will still have difficulties to iron out. It will still be paying out £80 million; and the £37 million is in the reserve anyhow. Therefore the position is not quite as good as it may sound. As I am sure the Minister will appreciate, it is difficult to make a snap judgment having just heard the announcement. When we see it in writing, perhaps we shall understand better.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth that as we were unable to achieve the complete abolition that many of us preferred, as was indicated in Committee, this is the next best option. I do not know whether it will be necessary to amend the proposed provisions. I do not believe that we should

445
commit ourselves without reading the proposal and considering it further. However, we have gone a little further. As we were unable to achieve the complete abolition which seemed to me and a number of other noble Lords—I do not refer only to my noble friends—the best way forward, we shall have to find a way of dealing with this next option which is fair to Channel 4 and fair all round.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, your Lordships may not be surprised to know that even the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, does not meet the criteria I sought to establish at an earlier stage of the Bill. To be asked to compromise still further by the Minister at relatively short notice is a surprise.
My back-of-envelope calculations show that the difference for Channel 4 between the payments under what one might call the Thomson regime and those under the Inglewood regime would be in excess of £80 million. It is therefore no cheap compromise in terms of Channel 4's payments.
It is not clear from what my noble friend said exactly where the proposal will appear in the Bill. Does he propose to make an amendment at the next stage so that it will appear on the face of the Bill? Or is it to be assumed to be part of the munificence of his department in making the arrangements subsequently? Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, if that is what he is inclined to do, we need an additional reassurance from the Minister. If the noble Lord does not receive it, I would very much urge him to press the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I do not wish to add a great deal. I am grateful for what noble Lords said. Obviously I would have preferred the entire House to say with one accord that the Government have got it completely right. However, I could not expect your Lordships to respond in detail to the proposal that I made without reading the particulars.
Perhaps I may respond to two specific points made by my noble friend Lord Stockton. First, we have not put detailed figures to the general approach I have just described. Secondly, I can confirm—as I believe I intimated—that we shall be bringing forward the relevant clauses for doing the kind of things I have described under the general principles of the 1990 Act. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for saying on the narrower but not unimportant point that I raised that he proposes that once the Bill becomes an Act he will immediately, by order, enable the capping of the reserve to take place and those resources to be made available to Channel 4 for programming rather than sterilised in the reserve. That is clear; there is no dubiety. I am grateful for his prompt response.
On the wider proposition, I thought that I had put forward a reasonable compromise. The Minister has now, in a sense, compromised my compromise. Many noble Lords know enough about the realities of these
446
matters to appreciate the efforts that the Minister has made to bring about the proposals before us. They are not minor. They constitute a significant change in the Government's position. Although the noble Lord is a deeply respected Minister in this House he is not himself the Secretary of State. And beyond his Secretary of State we all know that there is a Treasury. To have got as far as he has done with the proposition that he put to us is a very considerable achievement. It would be grudging if one did not pay immediate tribute to that. Nevertheless, in many ways he has put forward such a substantial modification to my amendment that we shall all wish to examine it in some detail before Third Reading. We shall want to know from the Minister the answer to the question posed by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. What will it mean in money terms during the 1998 year? For how much longer, and in what quantity, will the rather grotesque subsidy from Channel 4 to the profitable ITV companies continue? It arises out of the Government's formula as against the formula I put forward in my amendment.
We shall wish to examine the legislative arrangements for enacting the provision. I do not wish to take away from the fact that the Minister has made a substantial concession which it, cannot have been easy for him to win. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 163 not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 164:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
MATTERS RELATING TO CONDITIONAL ACCESS SYSTEMS AND SUBSCRIBER MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND LICENCES TO RUN SYSTEMS
(" . After section 191 of the 1990 Act there shall be inserted the following sections—
"Matters relating to conditional access systems and subscriber management services.
191A.—(1) Any person who runs a conditional access system or a subscriber management service in relation to a television programme service shall be required to obtain from the Director a licence for the running of such system or service.
(2) The Director may after consultation with the Commission and such other persons as appear to the Director to be appropriate grant a licence for the running of a conditional access system or a subscriber management service in relation to a television programme service.
(3) A licence granted under this section shall be in writing and, unless previously revoked in accordance with any term in that behalf contained in the licence, shall continue in force for such period as may be specified in or determined by or under the licence.
(4) A licence granted under this section may be granted to all persons, to persons of a class or to a particular person.
(5) A licence granted under this section may include—

(a) such conditions as appear to the Director to be requisite or expedient having regard to the duties imposed on him by subsection (9) below;

(b) conditions requiring payment to the Director on the grant of the licence or payments during the currency of the licence or both of such amount or amounts as may be determined by or under the licence; and

(c) conditions requiring any person who is authorised by the licence to run a conditional access system or a subscriber management service to furnish to the Director, in such manner and at such times as he may reasonably require, such documents, accounts, estimates, returns or other information as he may reasonably require.

(6) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (a) of subsection (5) above, conditions included by virtue of that paragraph in a licence granted under this section to a particular person may require that person—

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

(b) except in so far as the Director consents to his doing or not doing them, not to do or to do such things as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified; and

(c) to refer for determination by the Director such questions arising under the licence as are specified in the licence or are of a description so specified.

(7) A licence granted under this section otherwise than to a particular person shall be published in such manner as the Director considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of the persons for whose benefit it will ensure.
(8) Any sums received by the Director under this section shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.
(9) It shall be the duty of the Director to exercise his function in the grant of licences hereunder in the manner which he considers is best calculated—

(a) to ensure fair and effective competition between persons engaged in the provision of conditional access systems, subscriber management services and services connected with them in particular television programme services;

(b) to promote the interests of consumers, purchasers and other users in the United Kingdom (in particular in respect of the prices charged, the quality and variety of service) of conditional access systems, subscriber management services and services connected with them in particular television programme services.

(10) The holding by any person of a licence authorising the provision of a conditional access system or subscriber management service shall not relieve him of any requirement to hold a licence under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 in connection with the provision of such a service or system.
Licences to run systems.
191B.—(1) Any person who runs a conditional access system or a subscriber management service within the United Kingdom shall be guilty of an offence unless he is authorised to run such a system or service by licence granted under section 191A above.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

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

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

(3) No proceedings in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted except by or on behalf of the Director.
(4) Without prejudice to subsection (2) compliance with this section shall be enforceable by civil proceedings for an injunction or interdict or other appropriate relief.
(5) In this section and in section 191A—
"broadcast" includes transmission by wire or other electromagnetic means;
"conditional access system" means any system or apparatus designed or adapted for the origination, initial transmission and final reception of signals for the actuation, operation or control from another place of other apparatus by means of which such signals comprising encrypted television programme services (save for such services which are broadcast in digital form) broadcast for general reception may be received and decrypted;
"Director" means the Director General of Telecommunications;
448
"subscriber management service" means a service provided to any person operating a conditional access system or to any other person in connection with television programme services (save for such services which are broadcast in digital form) provided or transmitted by another person whether or not that last person is in the United Kingdom for billing or payment handling in respect of charges for and payments received from viewers of encrypted television programme services broadcast for general reception in the United Kingdom.".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we debated this issue twice in Committee and at the Report stage on Tuesday, so I will not repeat the arguments. My amendment on conditional access for analogue satellite television has all-party support. It has the support of the television companies, the cable companies and programme makers; and also of EUTELSAT, the intergovernmental organisation in Europe; and of course the Government support the principle of conditional access for digital satellite television.
My noble friend the Minister was as usual most helpful and allowed me to take my case directly to the DTI, which will be responsible for future regulation in this area. I was unable to persuade the Minister at the DTI. I have to say that I think the DTI has its own agenda for broadcasting. It feels that it is only necessary in the future for digital to have conditional access, and contends that digital is just round the corner.
If the 1990 Act taught us anything, it is that in the broadcasting world it is very difficult to predict the future. Even the industry is not predicting the date when digital transmission will commence. Analogue may be with us for quite a long time. This issue is one of the most important in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I wish most strongly to support what I consider, apart from the sporting items, to be the most important central issue of the Bill.
As we know, the Government propose to regulate conditional access services for digital, through licence, under the Telecommunications Act 1984 and for them to be regulated under the Act by Oftel. We accept that. As we have said, we are very sympathetic to arguments, which my noble friend Lady Dean and I put at previous stages, that the ITC should be the regulator since the issues are broadcasting ones. The Government have resisted that; and we acknowledge that, because to us what matters is not who regulates but that there should be regulation. We believe that we should apply to analogue what the Government apply to digital.
I follow the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, and shall not repeat all the arguments. The heart of the matter, which should be borne in mind, is that the conditional access system controls who receives broadcast programmes. Conditional access in Britain, under analogue now, is dominated by Videocrypt, which is installed in over 95 per cent. of UK satellite receivers. It is owned by one company, News International, licensed to Sky. Therefore, the leading satellite broadcaster also controls access by its broadcasting competitors to home satellite receivers. That is a position of potential abuse which should be regulated.

449
On digital, the Government say openly that there is a future danger that one or two providers of conditional access may come to dominate and restrict choice through the conditional access gateways. That is a future danger. The present reality is there, in one monopoly provider of analogue conditional access systems. So the same concerns and the same solution—the Government's own solution, which we support—should apply.
The Government's main argument seems to be that analogue is a transitional technology. I accept everything that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said in questioning that. Analogue will be the majority technology for at least the next decade. That is the gap that should be regulated. Monopoly control by just one provider over that decade will, in broadcasting practice, provide the basis to purchase dominant control of film rights and sports rights, to see it into, in a dominant position, the digital decades after that.
The Government may also say that present competition law offers sufficient remedies against dominant abuse. We do not accept that. Competition law, as we know, operates slowly and unpredictably. Inevitably, there will be a long period of uncertainty which will effectively deter new broadcasters from entering and investing in rights unless they have the confidence that they will have what they do not have under the present analogue system; namely, equal and unfettered access to all pay-television homes. Only this amendment will secure that.
On a final general point, as we said at Second Reading the key question with this whole digital landscape ahead is how to get it off the ground. It needs incentives to broadcasters, viewers and manufacturers. But the refusal to regulate analogue works in a contrary direction.
Leaving one dominant controller in that privileged position on analogue conditional access gives it an incentive to stay with analogue, and with that privilege, and not to move forward to the more regulated digital. For all those reasons I urge support for this amendment.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I have listened again to my noble friend's explanation and to that of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. In fact, I re-read the argument advanced in Committee. Again, I do not think it is necessary to introduce new licensing requirements for analogue conditional access and subscriber management systems.
My noble friend took me to task during my short speech in Committee, as it was clear to him that I may not have had as much time to study the amendment as I should. However, I have done a little more homework and wish to make some more points.
First, until new European legislation forced the Government to accept licensing for digital conditional access systems, they were opposed to the idea. Rather, they argued that there is no need for the licensing of any conditional access system because current competition policy in the form of MMC, OFT and other safeguards is sufficient. To force additional regulatory obligations onto as yet uncommitted manufacturers or operators of
450
digital conditional access systems would be foolhardy, creating strong disincentives for them to invest in the first place.
Secondly—and here I want to answer the question that my noble friend asked me in Committee—it is also the case that, while analogue satellite channels reach only 15 per cent. of all UK homes, those digital channels that replace them will eventually reach virtually all UK households. Furthermore, it can be argued that the analogue market is unlikely to grow much further because virtually no analogue transponder capacity is available on the independent Astra satellite system. If a case is to be made for any further regulation, it should apply much more to the huge potential of digital than to the limited achievements of analogue.
I am treading a little more carefully this time. I am reluctant to disagree with my noble friend Lord Astor, whose knowledge of this issue I respect, but I am informed by Sky that, whatever the number, location and variety of subscriber management systems used by a satellite broadcasting company, consumers will never need to change their black-box decoder. The decoder is part of the conditional access system and it functions on a wholly separate basis to the SMS.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Inglewood touched on the wider implications of these amendments. To change the rules governing a well-established analogue market-place would undermine investment confidence and place a large questionmark over the Government's general commitment to regulatory stability. There is no need for this amendment.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, from these Benches we also strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. I do not intend to go over the arguments around this subject that we have had on a number of occasions, but simply add a couple of points. First, the present system is not working well, certainly not from the point of view of many cable operators. The truth is that BSkyB has a vertical integration of all the three processes that go into this form of programming. As I have said repeatedly, that is wrong in principle, but the only way to deal with it is to have an effective regulatory system, an effective licensing system.
Cable operators, for instance, would like to offer a wide range of programming packages which they are prevented from operating because of the dominant control that BSkyB has over those arrangements. They would like to do "mini" basic packages of several channels, rather than having to produce the great packages that suit BSkyB's economic interest. I do not labour the point. I say simply that the present system already calls for an adequate licensing control.
I mention one other argument that has not so far been fully developed. It concerns the future and the Government's hopes of making a success of the digital revolution. The fact is that BSkyB's dominance of analogue conditional access will allow it to build a dominant position in digital pay television. BSkyB has two enormous advantages in the transition to digital broadcasting arising from its existing dominance of the analogue market. It already knows the identity and

451
detailed viewing habits of the core audience in this field. A successful service depends on the acquisition of the most attractive pay television rights—largely films and sport. Key rights holders sell pay television rights as a package, including both analogue and digital transmission. Therefore, if BSkyB continues to enjoy a virtual monopoly of high value pay television rights and controls conditional access for the existing network of 3.5 million direct-to-home viewers, it alone will have the benefit of established scale in bidding for new rights and it alone will be able to spread the cost of such rights over both digital and analogue receiver networks. That situation calls for the kind of licensing system for which the noble Viscount argued. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, along with sporting issues this is probably the most important issue in the Broadcasting Bill. I hope that the noble Viscount will receive from the Minister as forthcoming a response to his amendment as I recently had to mine.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will take account of the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. He is absolutely right in saying that nothing is more difficult to forecast than the future in television. I thought his case very strong.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we return again to this subject, as a number of noble Lords said. I am extremely grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate for, I think, the fourth time. That reflects the importance that noble Lords who have spoken attach to the proper control of conditional access arrangements, which is also the concern of the Government. I shall be brief but that is not to dismiss the views expressed. Rather, I do not wish to detain the House reiterating arguments I have previously expounded at length. Indeed, the opinion of the House on the central issue has already been tested.
As explained, the amendment seeks to establish a common regulatory regime for both analogue and digital conditional access. My noble friend models his approach around that of the Telecommunications Act. I am happy that we agree that this is in principle the right framework and that Oftel is the most appropriate regulator. Indeed, the Government's own proposals cover fully the regulatory effect of the amendments as they apply to conditional access services for digital television. Where we differ is on the judgment of whether it is appropriate to extend this form of regulation to analogue services.
I can only summarise again the Government's judgment, which was supported in the vote on Tuesday. I entirely understand the anxieties of those opposing us on the issue but we believe they are not justified on the facts. We remain of the view therefore that the amendment is not appropriate. We consider it risks doing more harm to UK interests than good.
The background to this judgment is that analogue conditional access is an established part of the market which has strictly limited potential for growth and which is likely to give way relatively quickly to digital markets. At this very moment the OFT is addressing concerns about behaviour in the market. Its
452
investigations will conclude during the passage of the Bill. This process provides for any further action which may be necessary if those concerns are substantiated. Further .specific regulation of an established, and limited, market is not appropriate without substantiation of this kind. The potential for damage to investment confidence in UK markets because of concern about regulatory instability is very clear, as can be seen from our experience in the last several years in the cable sector. I referred to that on Tuesday. In the absence of confirmation of the need for specific regulation from the competition authorities, the benefits which might flow from the amendment are unclear. That, in a nutshell, is the Government's position. And it is why I very much hope that my noble friend will agree to withdraw the amendment, which we cannot accept.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. As always he put his case clearly and with great care. My noble friend Lord Colwyn raised a number of issues. With great respect, I believe that we dealt with them on Tuesday when we addressed the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, which was fairly similar. I do not feel that it would be helpful to the House for me to go into those matters today.
I wish to make two main points. I do not believe that my amendment will damage investor confidence. I believe that it will improve competition. It is supported by those in the industry who wish to invest in digital. They want the amendment. If they did not want it, they would say so. I am not one to push it forward. I am very much against damaging any investor confidence.
I am a deregulator. I believe in deregulation and the Government's deregulation initiatives. But I do not believe that we should deregulate monopolies, and that is what we have at the moment. My amendment would benefit the industry and above all the consumer. It pains me to be at odds with my noble friend the Minister, but this is a crucial issue. I must test the opinion of the House.
5.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 164) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 103.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Annan, L.

Chalfont, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Chandos, V.

Astor,V.[Teller]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Barnett, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Birk, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Blackstone, B.

David, B.

Borrie, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Broadbridge, L.

Desai, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Diamond, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Donoughue, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

453

Dubs, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falkender, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Falkland, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fitt, L.

Nelson, E.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Geraint, L.

Norrie, L.

Gibson, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redesdale, L.

Haskel, L.

Renton, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Richard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Russell, E.

Howell, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Seear, B.

Hughes, L.

Sewel, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Shannon, E

Jay of Paddington, B.

Shepherd, L.

Jeger, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Stockton, E.

Kirkhill, L

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Lockwood, B.

Strafford, E.

Tenby, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Thurlow, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tope, L.

McNair, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McNally, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mayhew, L.

Walpole, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

White, B.

Mersey, V.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Winston, L.

not-contents

Addison, V.

Finsberg, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Gisborough, L.

Ailsa, M.

Goold, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Goschen, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Greenway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Beloff, L.

Harlech, L.

Birdwood, L.

Harrowby, E.

Blake, L.

Hemphill, L.

Blaker, L.

Henley, L.

Boardman, L.

Holderness, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hooper, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Howe, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Inglewood, L.

Burnham, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cadman, L.

Knollys, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Liverpool, E.

Carnock, L.

Long, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Lucas, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lyell, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Courtown, E.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Marlesford, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Denham of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Milverton, L.

Dundee, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Munster, E.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

454

Norfolk, d.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Northesk, E.

Stewartby, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Orkney, E.

Strange, B.

Oxfuird, V:

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Swansea, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Swinfen, L.

Rennell, L.

Teynham, L.

Renwick, L.

Tollemache, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Seccombe, B.

Trumpington, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Vivian, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Wynford, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett moved Amendment No. 165:
After Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
PROVISION OF NEWS ON CHANNELS 3 AND 5
(".—(1) Section 31 of the 1990 Act (provision of news on Channels 3 and 5) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (2) there is substituted—
"(2) The Channel 3 licence holders shall appoint a single nominated news provider who shall be responsible for the broadcast on Channel 3 of news programmes which shall—

(a) be of high quality dealing with national and international matters;

(b) presented live; and

(c) broadcast simultaneously with the broadcasts of news programmes provided by the single nominated news provider which are made by other holders of regional Channel 3 licences in compliance with conditions so imposed.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 165 is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare. I was asked to emphasise that they not only added their names, but also strongly agree with the amendment, as do others who unfortunately cannot add their names because no more than four are allowed on the Marshalled List.
It is clear from the words of the amendment that this is not a party political issue. The first part of the amendment substitutes a new subsection (2) to Section 31 of the 1990 Act—specifically subsection 2(c). As I said in Committee, without the new subsection a situation would arise which none of us want to see; that is, a fragmentation of news programmes on ITV presented by a variety of news providers at different hours. I hope your Lordships will agree that that cannot be helpful to providing high quality news.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was upset when I said that I did not watch "Gladiators". I do not have grandchildren who might otherwise drag me in to see it. It seems crazy to me that such programmes, as with comedy programmes, are always seen at the same hour, whereas without the amendment news programmes may be provided at different times.

455
Subsection 2(c) is therefore particularly important; that is, that the broadcasting of news should be simultaneous on Channel 3.
There is anxiety in some quarters that the amendment may create difficulties. But it does not necessarily have to apply to all channels. For example, it would not apply to Channel 5, or to other channels if there were any. Even in relation to Channel 3, the Independent Television Commission could nominate more than one news provider, provided they meet its criteria. It is then for the ITV companies to choose one other than ITN. That would certainly be within the rights of the ITC.
I turn to the second part of the amendment. As I said in Committee, it may seem surprising that a recent deputy chairman of the BBC should move an amendment like this. I hope it is not surprising. As I emphasised in Committee—again I know that there is anxiety about the amendment—I do not want to see a monopoly of TV news, whether on the BBC or ITV. I know that the BBC does not want that either. What matters to me, and I hope the House, is the quality of the news programmes on both ITV and BBC, and who should decide on the news provider. That should not be decided by the government of the day; it should be decided by the Independent Television Commission, which is truly independent. It may choose ITN or some other qualified news provider. As the amendment makes clear, that would be decided by the ITC.
I say again: it will not be the ITV companies who decide; it is not a party political matter; and it is not a monopoly matter. We need this proposal or something like it. If the Minister does not want to accept the amendment, although he might, perhaps he will put down his own amendment at Third Reading. Without something like the amendment one could have a news provider who does not have the necessary ability to provide a range and balance of news coverage.
Perhaps it is worth quoting here what we said previously. No, it is not worth quoting because I want to catch a train. It is a long quotation but the Minister knows what I said. As the Bill stands, there is a lack of clarity, as I hope the Minister will agree. The amendment should not be controversial. It seeks to do what most people thought was always intended. I hope the Minister and the House will accept that. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if it is of assistance to the noble Lord, I willingly say that we would like to take away Amendment No. 165 and allow parliamentary counsel to work on it and table a similar amendment at Third Reading. We have certain objections to the second amendment.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I do not want to withdraw the amendment at the moment because I know some noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, want to speak.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am always glad to hear the Minister accept something so I
456
do not want to interfere too much. I happily support the amendment. Perhaps I may make one point clear from these Benches. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, made the same point. The amendment is neutral as between ITN and any other bidder to provide a nominated news service, including Sky News. So far as I am concerned, ITN has had a good record over many years. Channel Four News produces a very special and distinguished news service. On the other hand, Sky News has enhanced our degree of choice with the country's first British based 24-hour news service which is of good quality. What I am opposed to is what has been canvassed within the ITV system—the possibility of having two competing nominated news providers, which indeed is possible under the 1990 Act. A single nominated news provider for Channel 3 is part of the national cohesion which we all talk about. It is certainly part of the essential national spine of the ITV broadcasting system. I would hate to see that fragmented.
Perhaps the Minister will clarify a point for me when he replies. Our amendment is entitled "Provision of news on Channels 3 and 5". I would not in principle be in favour of the same nominated news provider providing both ITV news and Channel 5 news. As I read the original Section 31 of the 1990 Act, it does not say that the nominated news provider should be the same in both cases. It merely indicates that there should be a nominated news provider and that it should be one of quality. With those qualifications, I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has said.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I always think that BBC news should be sacrosanct but I find it disturbing that it is made by Granada for the BBC. Who controls that if there are imperfections in the standards being set? I am not saying that there are, but does it come under the ITC as it is produced by Granada, which is an independent company? Presumably it comes under the BBC if it has it on its channel. It does not sow quite the same confidence when I see that it is news made for the BBC by Granada. It is a small point. I think purity of the public service is very important, particularly in the news area.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, perhaps I may make two brief points. First, the signatories to the amendment are either Cross Benchers or Social Democrats but there is support for the amendment on this side of the House. I tried to add my name to the amendment but, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, indicated, other people had jumped in first. I want to emphasise the fact that there is some support for the amendment on this side of the House.
Secondly, I am delighted that the Minister accepts the principle of the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord meant Liberal Democrats. He said "Social Democrats".
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I never get the names right. The Liberal Democrats are such a wonderful party but I am always confused about the actual name. I did mean the name the noble Baroness mentioned—a very fine name indeed!

457
I trust the Minister to accept the spirit of the amendment. But when he gets in cahoots with his officials I hope he will emphasise to them that we do not want a patchwork provision. There must be· one provider; not necessarily ITN, as the noble Lord said, although I hope it will be ITN. I have to declare that one of my daughters works for ITN. There should be one provider. Otherwise we shall have a patchwork provision and we shall have news being shown at different times in different parts of the country. That is the last thing we want. I hope the Minister will bear that point in mind.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by pointing out to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that I am a Conservative and that my name is attached to the amendment. It is very cruel of him not to remember that I am a Conservative as he was my pair when I was in the lower House. Perhaps I may also say how aware I am that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, hopes to catch a train to Manchester at a particular hour, so I shall not repeat arguments that have already been put forward.
I am bound to say, though, as a man who believes in free enterprise, that it would be natural for me to want to see as much competition as possible. But in this particular case it is a matter of wanting quality rather than anything else. I was moved by the comments of John Birt at the 40th anniversary of ITN—it is not ITN we are actually discussing here; it is anyone who might have this job—that the strength of the BBC as a news agency for the whole world was the strength of ITN. As long as you had outstanding competition for the BBC, the BBC had no choice but to make sure it was as good if not better. That is what we are fighting for in the House today. It is to make sure that the BBC has to stay on its toes for ever. I do not believe that would happen if this task was given out to many people and the standards were lowered. For that reason alone I back this amendment and back the noble Lord, Lord Barnett.
I want to be able to say whenever I travel around the world, and whenever I see anyone else's television, particularly in the United States, that we still have the best news service in the world. The way to keep that best news service in the world is to darn well make sure it is on its toes morning, noon and night. We shall not achieve that by dividing the talents we have among many people. We shall achieve it by making sure that they work together.
I am happy to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and I am pleased to have my name to it as well. I am pleased to remind my good and very old friend Lord Ashley that I am a member of the Conservative Party.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I rise with some trepidation because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is heading for the six o'clock train. But I have always assumed that the Manchester train would not dare leave without him.
I wish to add something that takes on a political, but not a party political, line. It is extremely important, at a time when more and more people receive their news
458
primarily from television, that there is that element of competition in quality to which the noble Lord, Lord Archer, referred. There is no doubt that the impact of ITN over the years has been a major spur towards improving the quality of BBC news coverage as well. I go further and slightly divert from what my noble friend Lord Thomson said. One of the advantages that we have had in recent years—and it is an added bonus—has come from Sky Television in the very high quality of Sky News. I would like Sky News to stay where it is as another competitor to the single provider for Channel 3 and the BBC. I agree with my noble friend Lord Thomson: I would like to see other providers coming in for the fifth channel.
We want diversity and quality in television news, but that does not happen by chance or accident. This Bill has to have in it the amendments which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett—I know what the Minister said—because they are needed. Without them there will be a tendency to go for the cheap and cheerful. As I said in Committee, the bean counters will prevail and news may well be forced to the margin of the third channel without the guarantees of this initiative put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and his colleagues. I commend the amendment to the Minister.
6 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, from these Benches we support this amendment. I am delighted at the enthusiasm of my noble friend Lord Ashley in jumping up and getting in his remarks, but my name was attached to the original amendment. It would have appeared with the amendment today, but as it has only four lines it could not be entered there. We felt that it was far better to have support from right across the House. As a fellow Mancunian, far be it for me to delay my noble friend Lord Barnett any longer. We strongly support this amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, although I thought that it might have been convenient to your Lordships—or one of them—to have indicated my response earlier, I would like to thank the noble Lord and his supporters in the "rainbow coalition" for having so clearly set out the purpose and rationale of the amendments.
When your Lordships debated this issue in Committee I undertook to reflect carefully on what was said about the provision of news on Channel 3 and I promised to make the Government's position clear today. I am pleased to do so.
A powerful case has been made for restricting the provision of news on Channel 3 to one provider. Having carefully considered the arguments, I can inform your Lordships that the Government agree with the purpose of Amendment No. 165. We are persuaded that there are significant benefits in requiring Channel 3 to have a single news provider and in amending the 1990 Act accordingly.
We accept that a single Channel 3 news supplier is an important counterbalance to the BBC and will help to provide competition for audience share and in the production of high quality newscasting. We agree that a

459
single news provider can provide continuity in bulletins throughout the day and throughout the country and help define Channel 3 as a national network. Limiting Channel 3 to one news provider will ensure that all regions get the same high quality of news. We accept the concern voiced by the ITC and others that a completely free market might lead to a diminution in the quality of news provision in some ITV regions.
In accepting the case for a single news provider we recognise the valuable role played by the ITC in vetting possible applicants for quality and therefore want to retain the ITC's role as the body which designates nominated news providers as such. We would not want, however, the ITC to take all Channel 3's decisions for them. We therefore propose that the ITC may nominate as many news providers for Channel 3 as it deems fit, but that it is left to the ITV network to choose which single provider best meets their requirements from those deemed fit. Such a framework will have the additional benefit of ensuring proper competition between news providers when the contract to the chosen provider nears the end of its term.
As I made clear in Committee, the Government are opposed to attempting a definition in statute of a quality broadcast news service which has not heretofore been needed. I therefore remain opposed to the revised attempt of the noble Lord in Amendment No. 166 to do so. We have a firm and effective regulator in the ITC and I see no need to tell them how to do their job in defining the quality of news provision which they have managed quite satisfactorily in the past.
With the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, I should like to take Amendment No. 165 away, permit parliamentary counsel to work on it, and to table a similar Government amendment at Third Reading. I very much hope that the noble Lord accepts my reasons for opposing his second amendment and that, in the light of what I have said, he might consider withdrawing them.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I again pay tribute to the Minister for the way he has handled this Bill, the BBC Charter and Agreement and the discussions which we had about it. We are very grateful for his knowledge and ability and the way in which he has handled matters.
I am happy to take away Amendments Nos. 165 and 166. I hope that I said that there can be many news providers. I do not object to them at all. If the ITC nominates other news providers who will meet their own criteria it will be for the ITV companies to choose which one they want to use. I have no objection to that because it is absolutely right. With the principle that the Minister set out and the way in which he agrees to Amendment No. 165, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. We shall look at the proposed amendment which I assume the Government will put down at Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 167:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
RESTRICTED TELEVISION SERVICES
(". After section 42 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"CHAPTER IIA RESTRICTED SERVICES
Restricted services.
42A. In this Part "restricted service" means a service which—

(a) consists in the broadcasting of television programmes for a particular establishment or other defined location, or a particular event, in the United Kingdom, and

(b) is provided on a frequency or frequencies assigned to the Commission under section 65.

Licensing etc. of restricted services.
42B.—(1) An application for a licence to provide a restricted service shall be made in such manner as the Commission may determine, and shall be accompanied by such fee (if any) as the Commission may determine.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), sections 40 to 42 shall apply in relation to such a licence as they apply in relation to a licence to provide a Channel 3 service.
(3) In its application to a licence to provide a restricted service, section 41 shall have effect with the omission of subsection (2); and the maximum amount which the holder of such a licence may be required to pay by way of a financial penalty imposed in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) of that section shall not exceed whichever is the greater of—

(a) £50,000, and

(b) the amount determined under subsection (4).

(4) The amount referred to in subsection (3)(b) is—

(a) in a case where a penalty under section 41(1)(a) has not previously been imposed on the holder of the licence during any period for which his licence has been in force ("the relevant period"), 3 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for his last complete accounting period (as determined in accordance with section 19(2) to (6)); and

(b) in any other case, 5 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for that accounting period (as so determined);

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 qualifying revenue for that accounting period (as so determined).".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I explained in the debate in Committee on Amendment No. 192, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, the Government are keen to see the expansion of smaller scale television operations where there is suitable available spectrum. This amendment follows representations made to us by the Independent Television Commission and mirrors, almost exactly, the provision for radio restricted service licences, and it is our hope that it will be as popular.
I should stress that this amendment applied to the current world of analogue transmission. With the arrival of digital and its more efficient use of spectrum, the multiplex provider will be in a position to include all manner of local television services aimed at special events or particular sections of the community. These will be a matter for contract between broadcasters and the multiplex provider.
Last year the Radio Authority issued over 300 restrictive service licences for 28 days or less and there are over 40 longer term RSLs operating in hospitals, universities and colleges. The economics of establishing a television service are somewhat different in scale than is the case for radio. We therefore envisage that the Independent Television Commission will need to consider carefully how best to encourage the take-up of these licences. However, the Government are keen to give the ITC the maximum possible room for manoeuvre in awarding them and this is why the amendment before your Lordships is drafted in broader terms than that put forward in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.
My department and the ITC are aware of the wish of the Silverstone race circuit to broadcast television services during events held there and we would envisage such broadcasts being licensed as restricted services provided there is spectrum available for such use. I am sure that there will be many more demands for such licences for special events and from the likes of university campuses keen to have a student television service.
I should explain that the provisions of new Section 42B merely replicate the enforcement provisions and the level of fines for breaching a licence which apply to all the ITC's other licensees, as amended by the government amendments debated on Tuesday. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment N0. 168.
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
ENFORCEMENT OF LICENCES TO PROVIDE NON-DOMESTIC SATELLITE SERVICES
(".—(1) Section 45 of the 1990 Act (licensing etc. of non-domestic satellite services) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5), for "and" there is substituted "to".
(3) In subsection (6), for "shall instead be £50,000" there is substituted—
"shall not exceed whichever is the greater of—

(a) £50,000, and

(b) the amount determined under subsection (6A).

(6A) The amount referred to in subsection (6)(b) is—

(a) in a case where a penalty under section 41(1)(a) has not previously been imposed on the holder of the licence during any period for which his licence has been in force ("the relevant period"), 3 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for his last complete accounting period (as determined in accordance with section 19(2) to (6)); and

(b) in any other case, 5 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for that accounting period (as so determined);

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 qualifying revenue for that accounting period (as so determined)."
(4) Subsections (8) and (9) are omitted. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 169:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
ENFORCEMENT OF LICENCES TO PROVIDE LICENSABLE PROGRAMME SERVICES
(".—(1) Section 47 of the 1990 Act (licensing etc. of licensable programme services) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (8), for "and" there is substituted "to".
(3) In subsection (9), for "shall instead be £50,000" there is substituted—
"shall not exceed whichever is the greater of—

(a) £50,000, and

(b) the amount determined under subsection (9A).

(9A) The amount referred to in subsection (9)(b) is—

(a) in a case where a penalty under section 41(1)(a) has not previously been imposed on the holder of the licence during any period for which his licence has been in force ("the relevant period"), 3 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for his last complete accounting period (as determined in accordance with section 19(2) to (6)); and

(b) in any other case, 5 per cent. of the qualifying revenue for that accounting period (as so determined);

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 qualifying revenue for that accounting period (as so determined)."
(4) Subsections (11) and (12) are omitted.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 170:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
RENEWAL OF LICENCES TO PROVIDE NATIONAL RADIO SERVICES
(". After section 103 of the 1990 Act there is inserted—
"Renewal of national licences.
103A.—(1) A national licence may (subject to the following provisions of this section) be renewed on one occasion for a period of eight years beginning with the date of renewal.
(2) An application for the renewal of a national licence under subsection (1) may be made by the licence holder not earlier than three years before the date on which it would otherwise cease to be in force and not later than the relevant date.
(3) Where any such application is made before the relevant date—

(a) if no simulcast radio service provided by the applicant is being broadcast in digital form when the application is made, the Authority shall postpone the consideration of the application until the relevant date or, if earlier, the date on which the broadcasting of such a service in that form begins, and

(b) in any other case, the Authority may postpone the consideration of the application for so long as they think appropriate having regard to subsection (8).

(4) Where an application for the renewal of a national licence has been duly made to the Authority, they shall (subject to subsection (5)) grant the application if, but only if—

(a) the Authority are satisfied that the applicant would, if his licence were renewed, provide a national service which complied with the conditions included in the licence in pursuance of section 106 (whether as originally imposed or as varied under that section),

(b) the applicant has given notice to the Authority under section 35(2)(6) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 of his intention to provide a service for broadcasting in digital form, and

463

(c) a simulcast radio service provided by the applicant is being broadcast in digital form or the Authority are satisfied that by the relevant date the applicant has done all that it would in the circumstances be reasonable to expect him to do by that date to procure the broadcasting of such a service within such time as the Authority consider reasonable.

(5) Section 100(4) to (6) shall apply in relation to an applicant for the renewal of a national licence as those provisions apply in relation to such an applicant as is mentioned in section 100(4), but as if any reference to the awarding of such a licence to the applicant were a reference to the renewal of the applicant's licence under this section.
(6) On the grant of any application under this section the Authority—

(a) may, in a case where a simulcast radio service provided by the applicant is not yet being broadcast in digital form on the relevant date, determine a date by which the broadcasting of such a service in that form must begin;

(b) shall determine an amount which is to be payable to the Authority by the applicant in respect of the first complete calendar year falling within the period for which the licence is to be renewed; and

(c) may specify a different percentage from that specified under section 98(1)(d)(ii) as the percentage of qualifying revenue for each accounting period of his that will be payable by the applicant in pursuance of section 102(1)(c) during the period for which the licence is to be renewed.

(7) The amount determined by the Authority under subsection (6)(b) in connection with the renewal of a licence shall be such amount as would, in their opinion, be payable to them by virtue of section 102(1)(a) if they were granting a fresh licence to provide the national service in question.
(8) Where the Authority have granted a person's application under this section they shall formally renew his licence not later than the relevant date or, if that is not reasonably practicable (whether because subsection (3)(a) precluded the consideration of the application before that date or for any other reason), as soon after that date as is reasonably practicable; and they shall not so renew his licence unless they have notified him of—

(a) any date determined by them under subsection (6)(a),

(b) the amount determined by them under subsection (6)(b), and

(c) any percentage specified by them under subsection (6)(c),

and he has, within such period as is specified in that notification, notified them that he consents to the licence being renewed on those terms.
(9) Where a national licence has been renewed under this section

(a) any conditions included in it in pursuance of section 102 shall have effect during the period for which the licence has been renewed—

(i) as if the amount determined by the Authority under subsection (6)(b) were an amount specified in a cash bid submitted by the licence holder, and

(ii) subject to any determination made under subsection (6)(c);

(b) (subject to paragraph (a)) that section shall have effect in relation to the period for which the licence has been renewed as it has effect in relation to the period for which a national licence is originally in force;

(c) where the Authority have determined a date under subsection (6)(a), they shall include in the licence as renewed a condition requiring a simulcast radio service to be broadcast in digital form throughout the
464
period beginning with the date determined under subsection (6)(a) and ending with the date on which the licence (as renewed) is to expire; and

(d) the reference in section 111(4) to the end of the period for which a national licence is to continue in force shall, in relation to the licence, be construed as a reference to the end of the period for which it has been renewed.

(10) Subsections (6)(a) and (9)(c) do not prejudice the generality of section 42(2)(b) of the Broadcasting Act 1996 (power to vary national licence to include conditions relating to digital broadcasting).
(11) In this section—
"simulcast radio service" has the same meaning as in Part III of the Broadcasting Act 1996;
"the relevant date", in relation to a national licence, means the date which the Authority determine to be that by which they would need to publish a notice under section 98(1) if they were to grant, as from the date on which that licence would expire if not renewed, a fresh licence to provide the national service formerly provided under that licence.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 171:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
FINANCING OF GAELIC SOUND PROGRAMMES
(".—(1) Section 183 of the 1990 Act (financing of television programmes in Gaelic out of Gaelic Television Fund) is amended as mentioned in subsections (2) to (6).
(2) In subsection (2), for "Gaelic Television Fund" there is substituted "Gaelic Broadcasting Fund".
(3) In subsection (3), for "Comataidh Telebhisein Gaidhlig (the Gaelic Television Committee)" there is substituted "Comataidh Craolaidh Gaidhlig (the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee)".
(4) After subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) Before making any appointment under subsection (3) the Commission shall consult the Radio Authority.".
(5) In subsection (4), in each of paragraphs (a)(i) and (b), after "television" there is inserted "and sound".
(6) In subsection (6)—

(a) after "will" there is inserted "—(a)"; and

(b) for "but" there is substituted—

"(b) widen the range and improve the quality of sound programmes in Gaelic that are broadcast for reception in Scotland;
but".
(7) In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified) there is inserted at the appropriate place—
"Comataidh Craolaidh Gaidhlig".).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the 1990 Broadcasting Act established the Gaelic Television Committee and gave it a remit to use the Scottish Office-funded Gaelic Television Fund to finance the making of Gaelic television programmes. Since the committee began its work in 1992, it has financed a wide range of programmes. Indeed, the amount of Gaelic television broadcast has almost tripled and the enhanced service has been warmly received by the Gaelic-speaking audience. It complements other government support for the language and culture. The successful development of Gaelic television production from a very small skills base is a credit not only to the committee but also to the broadcasters and the

465
independent producers in Scotland who have worked hard to deliver a range of high quality programmes for Gaelic viewers.
The rapid expansion in television programme production has not, however, been without its problems. Many people previously working in Gaelic radio have moved into television thereby creating a significant staffing turnover in BBC Radio nan Gaidheal. It has also proved difficult to develop satisfactory programmes in some categories, particularly comedy, where it is felt that radio would be a better medium to develop talent and ideas before embarking on expensive television production.
The amendments seek to address those problems by extending the committee's remit to cover radio and by giving it powers to fund some Gaelic radio production and meet some of the training costs involved for people employed in Gaelic radio. I do not envisage that the new powers will make a significant impact on the committee's budget since radio production is much cheaper than television.
I should stress that in making these amendments we are not seeking to transfer responsibility for meeting the costs of BBC nan Gaidheal to the committee. We expect the BBC to continue to maintain its Gaelic radio service, paid for from the licence fee, and to include a commitment to that effect in the statement of pledges to its audience which it is currently preparing. We recognise the importance of the Gaelic radio service to Gaelic speakers in Scotland. Indeed, recent research has shown that Radio nan Gaidheal is listened to by 66 per cent. of its potential audience of 69,000 Gaelic speakers, which is impressive when compared to the next highest BBC service in the survey, BBC Radio 1, with an audience share of just 27 per cent. The amendments, if enacted, will enable the committee to fund additional Gaelic radio programmes on BBC and commercial radio stations in Scotland which will enhance the range and quality of radio for listeners there.
The amendments have the effect of renaming the Gaelic Television Committee the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee to reflect its enhanced role and to give the Radio Authority a say in the appointment of membership to the committee and in the approval of the committee's expenditure plans in respect of radio. Responsibility for the oversight of the committee and its work remains with the Independent Television Commission. It would be our intention to bring the provisions into effect on 1st April 1997. In speaking to Amendment No. 171, I have also covered Amendments Nos. 220A, 221, 222 and 224. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will accept that I am not in any sense trying to get in behind him in the comment that I now make. I genuinely seek information. I assure him of that. However, when the Bill was published the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, said that the Government might at some stage table amendments to improve the quality of the scheduling of Gaelic television programmes. So far that has not been done. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me the Government's intention.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, perhaps I may say on behalf of these Benches that we welcome the Minister's proposal to extend the remit of the Gaelic Television Fund to make it the more general Gaelic Broadcasting Fund. We agree with everything the Minister said about the record of Gaelic broadcasting since the fund was set up.
I do not want to strike an ungenerous or sour note. However, it is one thing to extend the operations of the Gaelic Television Fund to radio broadcasting and to say that it will have some extra resources. To do so against the background that the present funding is not being increased to cover radio—indeed, the total funding is being severely restricted—is another thing. As I understand it, if the Gaelic Television Fund had been fortunate enough to enjoy the provisions which the Government are now writing into the Bill for the Welsh-language S4C and had index-linked the fund, it would today have about £6 million more. The Gaelic Television Fund is struggling financially and although it welcomes the opportunity to expand into radio, I think it a pity that it is not being given extra funding for the purpose.
I wish to raise another matter with the Minister and gain his reaction to it. The Gaelic Television Fund people are anxious, as the Welsh-language broadcasters were anxious, that they should have their fair share of the opportunities of the new digital age when it comes. I assume that with the many new channels that digital technology will bring through the multiplexes there may be an opportunity for greater concentration of Gaelic programming. I wonder whether the Minister has thought about the possibility of consolidating the Gaelic programmes on the various terrestrial channels that exist at the moment on a designated digital channel—perhaps not on a round-the-clock basis but at least for several hours a day. Encouragement in that direction would he most welcome.
It would offer a further opportunity. I know that those involved feel that they have done well in terms of the programmes they have funded. They have won some creditable awards for their programmes. But they feel frustrated that final commissioning decisions are always left to the terrestrial broadcasters such as Scottish Television or Grampian Television on the ITV side and to BBC Scotland. I have explained to them that I do not think that they can hope for any change because editorial responsibility for the commissioning of programmes must rest with the terrestrial broadcasters. However, multiplex offers a new world—does it not?—and it may well be possible to have a digital Gaelic channel in one of the multiplexes and for the Gaelic Broadcasting Fund to be the commissioner. I hope that that idea can be explored. I should be grateful to know the Minister's thinking.
In general therefore I welcome the extension of the fund's responsibilities but put in a plea that its overall funding might be looked at more generously.
Lord Inglewood: I turn first to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. We recognise that there are difficulties in finding sufficient time during peak

467
viewing hours on Channel 3 in Scotland for the scheduling of Gaelic television programmes. My department and the Scottish Office are considering how the present scheduling of programmes might be eased following the introduction of digital television. I hope that that answer indicates to the noble Lord that both my department and the Scottish Office are concerned about the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, raised the question of funding. We must be clear that the Gaelic Television Committee is not a broadcaster. It is a statutory body which gives grants for the making of television programmes. We see no reason why its funding should be treated any differently from that of any other grant-awarding body in Scotland, such as the Scottish Arts Council and the Scottish Film Council. That is perhaps a better comparison than that of S4C, suggested by the noble Lord, because S4C is a broadcaster. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland will note the views that have been expressed on the need to provide adequate resources to support Gaelic broadcasting and that he will take them into account when setting the fund's budget in future years.
The noble Lord suggested having a specific digital channel for Gaelic. The basis of the allocation of multiplex licences depends upon inter alia the variety of the programmes offered and—I am now concentrating on later in the story than now—if there were to be local multiplexes, it is clear that there would be a strong case, in meeting that variety criterion, for any potential applicant to include a Gaelic service on that multiplex. On national multiplexes, it is still too early to say how the variety criterion might be met in respect of Gaelic provision, bearing in mind that its 69,000 speakers are only a small part of the total national audience.
It is interesting to focus on that matter but we must remember that once we have digital television the origin of the programme will not necessarily be all that clear to the viewer. It may not even be necessary to have a specific Gaelic channel, because there may be a number of different services, each of which, as part of its general move towards providing a wide variety of programmes, will introduce Gaelic programmes. There is plenty of potential for Gaelic in the digital future.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth Lord Thomson of Monifieth moved Amendment No. 172:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
ITC: ANNUAL REPORT
(".—(1) The 1990 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 197, in subsection (3)(a), at the end there is inserted "in a review included pursuant to paragraph 15(2A) in any report by the Commission under paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to this Act; or
(3) In Schedule I, there is inserted after paragraph 15(2)—
"(2A) The report shall include a review by the Commission of developments in and the financial performance of the services regulated by the Commission; and in conducting the review the Commission shall have regard to the need to exclude from the review, so far as is practicable, any matter which relates
468
specifically to the affairs of a particular person whose interests would, in the opinion of the Commission, be seriously and prejudicially affected by the publication of that matter.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships are not becoming as weary of the sound of my voice as I am. As the Minister will be aware, this is an amendment inspired by the ITC, which I believe has been in discussion with the Government about the possibility of statutory backing to enable the ITC to publish more information about the financial structure and performance of the television industry. I am sure that in seeking that the ITC does not wish to place any additional burdens on any class of ITC licence in terms of supplying data to the commission. What is required is a explicit power to publish data it already has, with the necessary safeguards about commercial confidentiality.
In recent months there has been a qualitative change in the nature of the work that the ITC does from the days when it was under the old IBA. Independent television is much more a business than a purely broadcasting service. One has only to look at the financial press to see that it is the financial changes which dominate discussion about the industry's future shape. It would allow much more informed debate about the UK television industry if there were a specific obligation on the ITC to perform this regulatory task, which is carried out in other regulated industries through their own statutory provisions. I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic response to the request from the ITC. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, has explained clearly the merits of the Independent Television Commission publishing an annual overview of the broadcasting sector and the reasons why he believes that in order to do so as part of its annual report, it needs statutory provision. As ever, the noble Lord has made his case most persuasively. The Government have taken the view that since the ITC has produced such a review in its 1994 annual report without any legislative provision, we need to be convinced to create such a statutory provision now in order for it to continue to do so. After all, it has explained that it is not seeking additional information beyond that which it currently obtains without statutory support.
Nevertheless, I recognise the force of the arguments. Without any commitment, we should like to consult the ITC's licensees on this matter. The department will also seek the views on the amendment of the ITV Association, the Cable Communications Association and other interested parties. I shall inform your Lordships of the result of our inquiries on Third Reading. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the positive way in which he has reacted to the suggestion. What he proposes seems to be a sensible approach to the matter. In the light of his assurance that he will go on in the way that he has suggested, I am happy to 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. 173:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
LICENSING OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES
(" . After Section 49(2) of the 1990 Act insert—
("(2A) The Commission shall do all that they can to secure, in relation to the spare capacity for the provision of additional services on frequencies on which Channel 5 is provided, that a single teletext service is provided on that spare capacity; but any such service shall be provided on only so much of that spare capacity as the Secretary of State may approve.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 174, 175 and 176, all of which are related. This is a new amendment. We did not consider it in Committee. It concerns teletext on the new Channel 5 service, which is not on air at the moment, as noble Lords will be aware.
The 1990 Act provided for the ITC to advertise and then award a licence for a public teletext service on Channels 3 and 4 and on S4C. Under the 1990 Act, the ITC set its quality threshold before applicants' cash bids could be considered. That threshold included the allocation of minimum numbers and main teletext pages to high quality national and international news, regional information, and the diversity of other types of information, including, for instance, travel, sports, arts and leisure, and education.
They were the minimum requirements of that threshold. Additional requirements were included in the winner's application, which was Teletext Limited. The ITC also monitors the service to check on compliance with the contract. For teletext capacity on Channel 5, there are no such provisions as those provided for in the 1990 Act.
The Channel 5 licence was awarded last October. Noble Lords may be aware that there was a legal challenge to the ITC decision on the award of that licence. One of the unsuccessful applicants applied to the courts. That legal challenge was disallowed by the courts in January this year.
The spare capacity on Channel 5 can, and I gather will be, licensed separately by the ITC. However, even though the Channel 5 service itself is part of public service broadcasting, teletext on Channel 5 is not subject to any public service requirement.
We ask whether that was intended when the Bill was drawn up. We have the position where those who provide teletext on Channel 5, under the present provisions—no provisions as I would interpret it—will be able to cherry-pick the most commercially attractive elements of Teletext Limited's service as provided on the other channels, without any kind of quality threshold being applied.
We suggest that the results could well be that public service teletext on Channels 3 and 4 and S4C will be undermined seriously by a competitor who does not have that quality threshold. We believe that the 1990 Act should be amended to provide such a provision. The amendments do provide that. They would introduce for a second public teletext service using the capacity on
470
Channel 5 a licensing and regulatory regime similar to the provisions currently applying to the public teletext service on Channels 3 and 4 and S4C.
Channel 5 itself is to be a national service. It probably will not need an appropriate requirement on regional information, but there should be requirements equivalent to those contained in Schedule 5 to the Broadcasting Act 1990 for high quality national and international news and for a range of other information calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.
I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendments, which will provide that dreadful term—a level playing field. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, my name is to the amendment, but the noble Baroness has said it all, and I am content to rest on the case that she has put to the Minister.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, has set out clearly the case for an additional public service teletext broadcaster on Channel 5. She pointed out that that is what the Independent Television Commission wants. It may help your Lordships in the consideration of these amendments if I explain where the difference of opinion on this matter lies between the Government and the ITC.
The ITC put its views on Channel 5 teletext to my department last year and we gave them serious and careful consideration, during the preparation of the Bill. The Government fully accept that there is a need to regulate the services on our principal broadcast channels, including the teletext services. That is why paragraph 9 of Schedule 7 to the Bill extends the consumer protection aspects of Section 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to include teletext services on Channel 5. It is not the case that the teletext service would be entirely unregulated.
The amendment in the noble Baroness's name goes further than the Bill's provision and lays specific public service requirements on Channel 5 teletext which the Government believe are unnecessary. Quality public service teletext broadcasts are already provided by the BBC and by the single Channel ¾ licensee, Teletext Limited. We remain to be convinced of the need or the benefit to the public of imposing public service broadcasting obligations upon the Channel 5 teletext licensee. We had rather seen this teletext service, with its lesser UK coverage, flourishing with only the lightest of regulatory touches.
We have taken careful note of the ITC's concern that the Channel 5 teletext licensee might cherry-pick the most profitable services from the public service licensee. Our view is that the market is large enough to support both services and the inherent advantages that the Channel ¾ licensee has will ensure that the Channel 5 licensee will not seriously affect its performance, which in turn means it will have different characteristics. The current licensee, Teletext Limited, has a much larger service to offer across its two channels against Channel 5's single channel. Teletext Limited has national coverage against Channel 5's forecast 70 per cent.

471
coverage. Finally, Teletext Limited provides a valuable regional service whereas Channel 5 teletext will probably remain a national service. For those reasons, we see no need to impose public service functions on Channel 5 teletext.
Finally, Amendment No. 175 seeks to add restrictions on the ownership of Channel 5 teletext. As I have said, the Government foresee that Channel 5 teletext could be a very different service from that provided currently by Teletext Limited and it follows, therefore, that we do not see any difficulty with co-ownership of the teletext services on all three commercial channels. For those reasons, we do not accept the need for ownership controls on the Channel 5 teletext licence.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving the background to the department's thinking on the issue. It is the first time that I have heard that explanation. It has left me with a number of questions. Channel 5 is a public service broadcaster. Teletext Limited put in its application for coverage on Channels 3 and 4 services against the background which prevailed at the time. It is now confronted with a new channel going on air next year in respect of which the teletext provision could cherry-pick the services that it provides. That is unfair competition and does not allow the kind of level playing field that one would expect in the commercial field.
I heard what the Minister said and, clearly, I need to think about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 174 to 176 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill moved Amendment No. 177:
After Clause 70, insert the following new clause—
AWARD OF NATIONAL SOUND BROADCASTING LICENCES
("After section 100(1) of the 1990 Act insert—
"(1A) For an existing licensee, the Authority shall not proceed to award a licence for a further term to that applicant even if he submitted the highest bid if in the opinion of the Authority it appears to them that any of the following apply—

(a) that the existing service has not proved to be of broad appeal, having failed to provide a diversity of programming calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests: or

(b) that the level and nature of upheld complaints about programming or advertising or both exceeds acceptable levels for the licence currently in force; or

(c) that the character of the licensed service, as proposed by the licence holder when making his application for the licence currently in force has not been maintained throughout the period for which the licence has been in force.

(1B) For an existing or a new licensee, the Authority shall not proceed to award a licence to the applicant who submitted the highest cash bid if in the opinion of the Authority any of the following apply—

(a) that he would not be able to maintain the proposed service to a satisfactory standard throughout the period for which the licence would be in force; or

472

(b) that there is not sufficient evidence that the format proposed would continue to be of broad appeal throughout the period for which the new licence would be in force; or

(c) that the applicant's proposals submitted under section 98(3) do not consist of a diversity of programmes calculated to appeal to a variety of tastes and interests".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this remains an important amendment, even though its precise wording may now need changing in view of Amendment No. 170, which was put down after Amendment No. 177.
Our concern is simple and it reflects views expressed in all parts of the House throughout the debates on the Broadcasting Bill. It is the need to introduce a quality-of-performance yardstick in the licensing of national commercial radio stations rather than merely relying upon the highest cash bid and the operation of the market.
Perhaps I may speak first about the general principle which the amendment addresses. I will then deal with its importance for the renewal of analogue licences granted by the earlier amendment to those companies committing to the digital option. At present, commercial radio licences must be awarded by the Radio Authority to the highest cash bidder unless there are exceptional circumstances. That carries great risks, as the early months of Talk Radio UK illustrate only too well. Had it not been for the firm actions taken by the Radio Authority and the response by the changed owners of that radio licence, the effect of the 1990 legislation would have been to give a national licence to an unacceptable radio service.
As things stand now, when national licences come up for rebid the same difficulties could arise. Furthermore, there is no way in which to take into account the past performance of an existing licensee which is seeking to win back its licence. It is possible to imagine a situation in which there is a national commercial radio licensee whose performance is very much less than satisfactory, although not bad enough for a licence to be revoked. Despite its unsatisfactory performance, if it reapplies for its licence and is the highest cash bidder it will get the licence back. I cannot believe that the Government would be content for such a situation to exist without safeguards.
This amendment provides those safeguards. It would establish a performance threshold which the highest bidder would have to cross before the Radio Authority could award a licence to it. The amendment is drawn to allow such a threshold to be applied both to existing bidders reapplying for their licences and to new applicants. It is an eminently sensible safety net and I hope that the Government can see their way to adopting it or an equivalent provision.
We have now seen the Government's plans to allow national commercial radio licensees to enjoy an automatic extension of their licences if they take up the digital option. But the performance issue still remains. Would the Government really think it in the public interest that an existing licensee should enjoy that automatic extension even if its broadcasts are

473
unsatisfactory, there is a high level of complaint against it or it fails to broadcast the format for which the licence was originally granted?
Of course, sanctions remain to the Radio Authority to deal with individual aspects of performance, but those are ongoing and do not deal with what could be an obvious injustice at the time of licence renewal. The performance thresholds that we are proposing provide an important safeguard in that respect too. I hope the Minister will see the value of adding such a provision to the new Section 103A. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has fairly and clearly explained the purpose of her amendment. We do not accept the need for the amendment, which cuts across both the workings of the 1990 Act and the Government's own provision for the renewal of independent national radio licences contained in the Government's Amendment No. 170, which we have already passed.
In my confusion with my papers I did not speak to that amendment and, trustingly, your Lordships approved it. It is an important amendment and I hope that your Lordships will permit me to explain a little about it in order to put on the record what it deals with.
The Government announced on publication of the Bill that we would be bringing forward an amendment to provide for the existing independent national radio stations to be given the chance to renew their analogue licences, provided that they took up their guaranteed places on digital. I apologise to your Lordships that it was not possible to bring it forward sooner. The new clause in Amendment No. 170 is based upon Section 20 of the 1990 Act, which permits Channel 3 television companies to renew their licences, but there are three important differences to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. Before doing so I should like to remind your Lordships of the rationale for this provision.
Digital broadcasting will be a considerable and risky venture for the three independent national radio stations. We believe that their involvement is important to the overall success of DAB, and it is of course vital that their established services be available on DAB if, in the future, we are to be able to reclaim the analogue spectrum. That is why we have offered the guarantees. But it is clear that the return from investment in DAB will not be realised overnight. Providing a one-off option for renewal will give the INR stations greater security from which to mount their venture into DAB.
I return to the three differences from the arrangements for television which I mentioned earlier. First, the new clause will permit renewal on one occasion only. We have no desire to provide the incumbent operators with licences in perpetuity. There is little frequency spectrum available for such services—even digital techniques will provide an increase only from three to six independent national radio services. So the spectrum is a valuable resource and there is always competition for its use. And new radio stations can begin operation more easily than new television services, where, for example, the start-up costs are considerably higher.
474
The second difference is that application for renewal may be made up to three years before the analogue licence is due to expire rather than four years, as provided for Channel 3. This is because radio licences run for eight years and not 10.
Thirdly, the Channel 3 television licensees need to meet performance requirements to qualify for renewal of their licences. This criterion will not apply to the independent national radio stations since the authority is not currently required to monitor performance and it would be inappropriate to add this further layer of regulation in a deregulatory Bill. Also, the licences will roll over only once, whereas Channel 3 licences can he rolled forward in perpetuity. That has a direct bearing on the amendment that we are considering.
I would also like to reassure your Lordships that the requirements in the clause relating to a starting date for digital broadcasting are not an attempt to rush the radio operators into precipitous action or otherwise cause them difficulty. The intention is to avoid any applicants obtaining renewal of their analogue licences by false pretences. But there may be situations beyond their control in which, for instance, the multiplex provider may be experiencing technical difficulty in beginning his service or it simply may not have been possible to finalise all of the arrangements between the broadcaster and the multiplex provider by the time the renewal must be determined. The new clause accordingly requires the radio station to make all reasonable endeavours to begin a digital service and to agree a date with the authority when broadcasting will start.
We want to encourage the independent national radio stations to invest in digital audio broadcasting and believe that they will find the offer of an eight-year extension to their analogue licences, subject to their taking up their guaranteed places on the digital multiplex, to be a real incentive.
Before concluding these remarks about independent national radio licence renewal, I ought to offer an apology to your Lordships that the clauses relating to independent local radio are not yet ready for consideration. However, as I have indicated previously during the passage of the Bill, we will also be making provision for independent local radio renewals. In addition, it is the intention to bring forward an amendment to clarify the circumstances in which the Radio Authority need not re-advertise an expiring independent local radio licence under Section 104(5) of the 1990 Act. That will provide for the authority to invite expressions of interest in an expiring independent local radio licence and for such parties to demonstrate their firm interest with a financial bond. Those amendments will be introduced at Third Reading.
As I have already mentioned, the Radio Authority is not required under the 1990 Act to monitor closely the performance of the independent national radio stations but reacts to complaints and concerns expressed to it by members of the public or other interested parties. Amendment No. 177 seeks to lay a heavier burden on the authority, which, in turn, would also add to the Radio Authority's regulatory costs. Since the authority is funded by its licensees, this would increase the

475
financial burden on the independent national stations at a time when we hope they will be investing in digital technology.
I have referred on a number of occasions during the passage of this Bill to the Government's commitment, where appropriate, to a light regulatory touch. The Radio Authority does an excellent job and is a fine example of that light touch in practice. With only 32 staff, it polices the independent sector most effectively, paying proper attention to the needs of the public at both a local and national level.
I understand that the amendment is intended to protect listeners, ensuring the maintenance of the quality and diversity of programme material broadcast by the independent national radio stations through the licensing system. This is a worthy objective and is an aspiration which the Government share. However, this amendment proceeds by introducing additional subjective tests for the Radio Authority to carry out via licensing. Such a process cuts across the well proven competitive tender procedure, which provides a more open and objective means of allocating licences, as part of a system which is committed to delivering a range of programmes of different varieties and which has served the public well.
This amendment could also in the medium term harm the move to digital audio broadcasting by adding a further burden to those very national radio licensees who will have their analogue licences rolled for a further period of eight years only if they take up their guaranteed digital place. The proposals accepted by your Lordships in our amendment earlier this afternoon, which I have just described, will enable the current licensees to continue to provide their services on analogue for which they have a licence while at the same time it offers them the incentive to invest in digital.
I am sure that the noble Baroness supports the movement towards digital broadcasting and would agree that it would be a great mistake at this point to make a provision which might risk slowing down the impetus towards that. I wish also to add that we would regard much of the new subsection (1B) in the amendment as an unnecessary duplication of the provisions already contained in Section 99 of the 1990 Act, whereby the Radio Authority in considering a licence application must have regard to diversity and the ability to maintain a service throughout the period of the licence.
I crave forgiveness for having gone on so long but I hope that I have explained our position on this to your Lordships and the noble Baroness.
Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but am a little disappointed by his reply. There is a strong feeling in the House that quality cannot be left to the market. Nor should it be sacrificed in the interests of giving an artificial stimulus to digital broadcasting. The existing national commercial radio operators raise no objection to the idea of a performance threshold and there is widespread support among listener groups as well as in this House. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Dormand will wish to consider further the Minister's reaction to our
476
amendment. We wish to return to the subject at Third Reading. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 71 [The Broadcasting Standards Commission]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 61, line 12, at end insert—
("(4) In appointing members of the BSC, the Secretary of State shall so far as is practicable, ensure—

(a) that the members of the BSC include members who, by reason of their familiarity with the special requirements and circumstances of different groups of viewers and listeners and of the different areas of the United Kingdom, are able to represent the interests of viewers of and listeners to television and sound programme services;

(b) that the membership takes into account the diverse interest of society, including women, different racial groups and disabled people,".).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 178 and speak 'to Amendment No. 179 at the same time. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the new Broadcasting Standards Commission includes members who will specifically represent the geographical and cultural diversity of the United Kingdom and the diversity of groups with special interests who are viewers and listeners. The amendments will also give statutory force to the proposals of the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, on Standards in Public Life about appointments to public bodies as they would apply to the new Broadcasting Standards Commission.
The two amendments are amalgamations and syntheses of the issues that we raised and the concerns which we expressed at greater length and greater depth at Committee stage. They are particularly important because at the Committee stage the Government rejected our attempts to extend the broader remit of the Broadcasting Standards Commission in which we had intended to create a more widely based consumer organisation with what one might call a general population base and a general policy mission.
We hope now that by specifying the characteristics of the membership of the new BSC (which is included in Amendment No. 178) and by creating a more open framework for their appointment (in Amendment No. 179) the listening and viewing public will be reassured that the new Broadcasting Standards Commission will be a body which can truly reflect their concerns and interests and not just become another cosy and closed quango.
At Committee stage, I drew your Lordships' attention to the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, on the subject. In his report he said:
"The basis on which members are appointed (to public bodies) and how they are expected to fulfil their role should be explicit. The range of skills and background which are sought should be clearly specified".

477
That is the purpose of our Amendment No. 178. Yet, although the Government say that they have accepted the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, they seem content to allow the Secretary of State total discretion about who is to be appointed to the BSC.
At the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, spoke of the need for "flexibility" and not,
"fettering the discretion of the Secretary of State".
On Tuesday of this week, in early deliberations at Report stage on the Bill, the Minister gave the same type of response to my noble friend Lady Dean in reply to her Amendment No. 50. In regard to equal opportunities employment in the broadcasting industry he said
"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".—[Official Report, 5/3/96; col. 245.]
It may seem a matter of course to the Minister, and naturally we on these Benches entirely accept the bona fides of the intentions of the present Secretary of State. But would it not be preferable if some of those aims were guaranteed in the future and made statutory and placed on the face of the Bill?
The same applies to Amendment No. 179 on the methods of appointment. The words of the amendment are taken directly from the Nolan recommendations. I remind noble Lords that it was precisely because there was public and parliamentary disquiet about patronage and political "cronyism" in public appointments that Nolan was asked to conduct part of his inquiry. The Government accepted his recommendations on appointments. In other important areas—for example, in the National Health Service—the appointments to the new unitary health authorities which take up office next month, in April, have been made on the basis of the Nolan recommendations.
In Committee, the Minister said that the Government had no need to amend the legislation relating to each public body in order to incorporate their commitment to the Nolan recommendations. But we are not asking the Government to amend existing legislation; we are asking them to demonstrate their explicit commitment to Nolan and all that it means by accepting these proposals in new legislation about the Broadcasting Standards Commission which is, after all, a new and important public body. I beg to move.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I support the remarks made by the noble Baroness. I do not know that the wording of the amendment satisfies me, or, indeed, the Minister. But greater openness in appointments to such bodies is much to be welcomed and is very much in line with what has happened in the honours list where the public is now invited to suggest names of those who deserve recognition for the public service they have given. The spirit of the amendment is not only in line with the Nolan report; it is also in line with something that is happening in public life. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some encouragement along those lines to the noble Baroness.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I am ashamed to say that I was not listening to the words spoken by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, because I was sitting here on the Back Benches contemplating, with a certain amount of horror, the constitution of the BSC under this immaculately worded and politically correct amendment. The amendment states that the membership should be representative of,
"the special requirements and circumstances of different groups … of the United Kingdom",
and that it should take,
"into account the diverse interest of society, including women, different racial groups and disabled people".
The Bill says that the BSC will consist of 15 people, including the chairman and two deputy chairmen. If we are to have a representative body which will include all those groups—and indeed every other group that anyone can think of as being suitable at present—it will not be a body of 15: it will be a body of 1,500. We all know that the best committee is the committee of two of which one person is absent. Surely 15 members will be enough.
Amendment No. 179 states that such appointments should be,
"made after advice of a panel or committee which includes an independent element".
But who will appoint that independent element? Will we have to start all over again and include all those people to whom I referred? It seems totally impracticable and unnecessary. It is also unnecessary from the point of view of Nolan. If the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Nolan Report, surely the Secretary of State will take them into account when making the appointments. There is absolutely no need to complicate matters by stating such requirements in the Bill.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I should, first, declare an interest as a member of the Nolan Committee. I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the remarks made by the noble Baroness rather than listen to the words just spoken by the noble Lord. I am not sure that the noble Lord has really studied the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. I do not believe that what he said was wholly consistent with them.
I hope that the Government will look positively at Amendment No. 179. The truth is that getting together some kind of representative group of the consumers of broadcasting is a difficult task. No easy solution has been found. In years gone by when I had some part in such matters I am bound to confess that, although we conscientiously tried to recommend appointments reflecting a wider basis as set out in Amendment No. 178, in reality it very easily becomes a rather cosy organisation and one tends to recommend the appointment of the kind of people who one feels might be congenial to one's self. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, a much more open system in which there are outside people—although they may be

479
uncomfortable people for those who are running broadcasting organizations—would be a thoroughly healthy development.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand the wish of the noble Baroness to ensure that the membership of the BSC is able properly to represent the concerns of the range of different groups of television and radio audiences. That is a wish which the Secretary of State would share. However, as I said in Committee, I do not believe that it is desirable to fetter in this way the Secretary of State's discretion to make the best possible appointments to the commission. That means taking account of a wide range of qualities, including ability, experience, skills and background, and having the flexibility to provide the best possible combination of them at a particular time.
Amendment No. 179 relates to recommendations of the Nolan Committee on standards in public life. I said in Committee that the Government have, for the most part, accepted those recommendations, as my noble friend Lord Burnham pointed out. As the recommendations either have been—or are in the process of being—implemented, we see no need for further statutory controls. However, I am able specifically to reassure the noble Baroness and the House that, first, all new appointees to the BSC will be required to complete a declaration of political activity; secondly, all appointments will continue to be made on the basis of merit, and job specifications will be drawn up in each case; thirdly, from July of this year appointments will be subject to scrutiny by an advisory panel with independent members; and, fourthly, the BSC will fall under the jurisdiction of the new Commissioner for Public Appointments (CPA), who has the power to audit an individual appointment and ensure that the correct procedures have been followed.
As regards the advertising of appointments, all government departments have recently been issued with draft guidance from the Commissioner for Public Appointments which includes provisions on that subject. My department is currently considering those proposals and will report back shortly. The noble Baroness said that she hoped that the public would gain reassurance from my response. I hope that I have achieved that. I also hope that the House is reassured.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is certainly a great reassurance to know that guidelines are being drawn up by the Minister's department. I hope that it will be possible for them to be available at least before the Bill completes its passage through another place.
As regards representation on the BSC, I am grateful to noble Lords who supported the points I wished to make. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that I am most flattered to be confused with my noble friend Lady Dean. I see that the noble Lord wishes to speak. I give way.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I should point out that I did in fact mean to refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.
480
Indeed, I would not have confused her with anyone over the past 20 years. I was actually referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, in the context of the earlier amendment she moved.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we are grateful for the noble Lord's clarification. Indeed, my noble friend had pointed out to me during the course of the noble Lord's contribution that it was perhaps a scarred experience from earlier days at the Daily Telegraph which had imprinted her so firmly on his mind.
However, as I said, we are most grateful to the Minister for not exactly making concessions but for at least having the inspired idea of taking forward the points we made about the recommendations of the Nolan Committee. I suspect that our anxieties about greater representation on the Broadcasting Standards Commission will be addressed again in another place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
7 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount St. Davids): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 180, I should point out to the House that, if it is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 181.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 180:
After Clause 71, insert the following new clause—
PARTY POLMCAL ADVERTISEMENTS
(". In section 8(2)(a)(i) and section 92(2)(a)(i) of the 1990 Act, after "wholly or mainly of a" insert "party"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tend to call this amendment, by way of shorthand, the Amnesty International amendment although, if passed, its benefits would range across a wider number of organisations than simply AI. At present Amnesty International suffers from a total ban on any form of radio or television advertising. That means that it cannot advertise a fund-raising concert—indeed, it cannot even advertise its Christmas cards on radio or television—yet any commercial organisation is able to do so. That is a serious disadvantage to an organisation like Amnesty International and to others which are caught in that way. My amendment would prevent such a total ban. It would enable Amnesty to advertise fundraising events and to sell Christmas cards and other items to fund its activities. It would also enable Amnesty to put out messages about its work, provided that was not directed towards any specific political end.
The immediate origin of the present difficulties lies in Sections 8 and 92 of the 1990 Act. These are similar sections but one covers radio and the other television. Section 8(2)(a) and Section 92(2)(a) state:
"a licensed service must not include—

(i) any advertisement which is inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature,

(ii) any advertisement which is directed towards any political end, or

(iii) any advertisement which has any relation to any industrial dispute".

481
Amnesty is deemed to be a body which is wholly or mainly of a political nature. By inserting the word "party" before the word "political" so that the provision would state,
"mainly of a party political nature",
I am advised that the amendment would enable Amnesty and other organisations to achieve some, but not all, of the things they wish to achieve. There would still be limitations.
Let me illustrate this by way of a few examples. I am advised that if this amendment were passed, Amnesty would be able to advertise its Christmas cards. It would also be able to advertise the fact that the organisation is against the use of torture because that is not a controversial point. It is totally accepted in this country that we as a country are against torture and unlawful killings by governments. Amnesty would be able to make those points in its advertising. However, under my amendment Amnesty would not be able to oppose capital punishment in advertisements because that would come under the heading of something that is intended to achieve a political end. Political ends in advertising are not accepted, and my amendment does not seek to alter that.
It seems to me that although these distinctions have to be clearly understood, my amendment will enable Amnesty and other organisations to achieve some of their aims but would not open the door to organisations seeking to use advertising to achieve specific political ends. It would therefore put Amnesty on an even footing with commercial organisations that wish to advertise their products. I do not intend my next point as a threat, but I understand that if this amendment is not accepted, Amnesty might seek recourse to the European Court of Human Rights. My advice is that, on the narrow point I have illustrated, Amnesty would probably win its case.
It is embarrassing that we as a country lose so many cases in the European Court of Human Rights. I am sure the Government would not wish to lose another one. However, I do not say that as a threat. It is a fact of life that when constraints of this sort exist, they are quite likely to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Be that as it may, my proposition here is simple. It is clear and it states what organisations such as Amnesty would be allowed to do. It prevents them from trying to pursue political ends through advertising. I commend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, suggested in moving this amendment that the advertising codes of the ITC and the Radio Authority are too restrictive in preventing advertising by bodies which are political campaigners but are not party political. I recognise the intentions behind the proposed amendment. I was grateful to the noble Lord for permitting me yesterday to see the legal opinion about the effect of the amendment.
The provisions restricting political advertising go back to the start of commercial television in 1954 and have remained substantially the same. They have served well for over 30 years. We have avoided broadcast advertising becoming part of the political process in the way it has, for example, in the United States—much to
482
the relief, I suspect, of most of the public. There is much to he said for seeking to retain that benefit while removing restrictions on non-political broadcast advertising by humanitarian or philanthropic bodies. It is, however, important to ensure that controversial campaigning, which of course goes much wider than party politics, cannot be unexpectedly and unwelcomely injected into unsuspecting households via broadcasting. In the circumstances therefore we propose to consider the amendment further and consult more widely, in particular with the regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the prohibitions. However, I must make it clear that I am giving absolutely no commitment to any change.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is it not the case that this type of campaigning—it also hit Oxfam—is covered in the Charities Act?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend seems to be rather ahead of me on that point.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful comments. I appreciate there is no commitment in what he said but his remarks were helpful. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration of the Report stage of this Bill be adjourned until five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Department of Social Security
7.6 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether and, if so, how they can increase the efficiency of the Department of Social Security without diminishing its effectiveness.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Unstarred Question is concerned with the proposed cut in the running costs of the Department of Social Security. I have put it down not in order to make an argument but simply to try to find out what the Government are doing. As in A. E. Housman's Fragment of a Greek Tragedy, my purpose in asking is to learn.
The Secretary of State, speaking on the "Today" programme on 8th February, said his intention was to try to improve our efficiency by roughly a quarter over three years; in other words, to cut his costs by a sum approaching £1 billion. It is a considerable sum of money. So far, the only real scrutiny this proposal has received has been from Mr. John Humphrys. Although I do not wish to denigrate Mr. Humphrys' vigour, first of all he is not a social security specialist, and, secondly, it is for the honour of Parliament that scrutiny should not be confined to the media but that we should take our

483
share in it. It is also important that the scrutiny should happen now while it is still possible to discuss plans before, as I understand it, most of them are set in stone.
I want to know first—so far as it knows this itself—what is the department actually going to do? Secondly, is this figure of a quarter of the running costs a wish, or is it a hard and fast target? Will it arrive at that figure absolutely regardless of the effects, or will it get there, or as near as it can, while trying to ensure that not too much harm is done in the process? Would the department draw back if it found the effects were proving really harmful? Thirdly, will the department take care not to diminish the effectiveness of the department?
In Whitehall language, in the framework document of the Benefits Agency for example, efficiency means cutting costs. Effectiveness means getting it right. What I would hope to hear is that effectiveness will not be sacrificed to efficiency. At the moment the Minister is presiding over an efficient—I mean efficient in my sense; not in Whitehall's—well running department. I would not wish to see that changed simply for the sake of saving money. If the Minister were to find that the department's effectiveness were being diminished by these proposals, would he back off?
Obviously the first question that comes to mind is that of redundancies. In a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Addington, the Minister gave assurances that the department is not at present contemplating any redundancies. I am glad to hear that, but I should like to know whether that is a hope or a promise. Does the Minister merely feel that he would like to avoid them, or is he giving an undertaking that he will do so? Further, if, sadly, there were to be redundancies, will the department make sure it calculates the cost of those redundancies to the social security budget before it counts them as a net saving?
The Secretary of State gave some answers on the "Today" programme which I should like to explore further. He said that he was going to go for what the jargon calls "process re-engineering": ensuring that the processes are geared to achieving the outcome. That sounds unexceptionable enough. I should like to know what it means. I should like some examples of what is actually meant by process re-engineering because we cannot judge what the Secretary of State is proposing until we understand what it is.
He also referred to getting:
"the process of getting information from the claimant to ourselves streamlined so you do not have to keep coming back again and again".
That sounds an unexceptionable objective, but I should like to know exactly how he is going to set about it because the circumstances of claimants regularly change. I should like some assurances that it can be done without diminishing the capacity of the department to respond to changing circumstances. That is quite an important part of the benefit system.
I understand that some of it may be done through computerisation. I hope the Minister can assure us that computerisation does not obviate the need for human
484
beings. Social security is full of anomalies. Indeed, very often people do not come within the compass of the system except because they are anomalies, so I hope it will remain possible to go and speak to a person where something has gone wrong with the computer system.
The Minister probably will not remember, because it was before he was in the department, an interesting debate initiated by the noble Lord Peston about the introduction of ACT—Automatic Credit Transfer. Very strong views were expressed then that this should not lead to the closure of rural post offices and that it should remain possible to obtain benefit at a post office. I am sure I do not need to tell the Minister, who knows rural areas extremely well, that these post offices can be the lifelines of rural areas. I hope he can assure me that the Government are not going to stop the claiming of benefit at post offices and that this is not going to lead to rural post office closures.
There are other problems in computerisation. The benefit payment card obviously has its attractions but, of course, it is possible for cards to be stolen, especially from people who are sleeping on the street. The Minister must have heard of the phenomenon of "taxing". What is going to happen to somebody who has a benefit payment card stolen by a person who is "taxing" them on the street? Is there is machinery in place to ensure that the thief does not draw an immense amount of benefit before the theft is detected? There are risks here and it is going to need people to avoid those risks. Again, I would like to hear a note of caution being struck in the Minister's reply.
The points I have made about rural post offices also need to be made about rural benefits offices. People on benefit, especially the elderly or the disabled, do not have the very highest degree of mobility. Having to go a long distance to the nearest benefits office may make life very much harder. Again, I hope we can have some assurance that this saving is not going to be achieved through closure of local offices.
I am also concerned, of course, about errors, as is the Comptroller and Auditor-General. He has once again qualified the accounts and pointed out a rate of error in income support claims of 16.1 per cent. I do not intend to be too fierce about that. People on benefit may have very high mobility. You might say of them what my noble friend Lady Seear once said about students, "They hop about like fleas". I am sure the Minister understands that, at the other end, many of these errors may represent very grave personal hardship. I hope I can have an assurance that, as these changes are introduced, the Minister will be watching the rate of errors in handling claims, and that if the rate of errors should show signs of significantly rising he will think again about what he is doing and not go ahead with savings which drive up the rate of errors.
I also want to know whether the target is contingent on the number of people on benefit at any one time, because when the number of people on benefit goes up, the number of people you need to deal with them may go up. I commend to the Minister the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, on the Second Reading of the Child Support Bill last year. The people

485
from the Liable Relative Unit were moved onto the counters because of a rise in unemployment and the costs of that decision are still with us. I hope the Government are not going to make that mistake again.
I hope also that the Minister can tell the House that there is not going to be a cut in the research budget. The department does not always like research by others, so I hope it can keep its own going.
I also want to offer a word of caution about self-assessment. The benefit system is hard enough to understand for us here. For people who unexpectedly go onto benefit it may be quite bewildering. If self-assessment comes in the Minister may find that it takes more staff to help people do their self-assessment than it would to continue as we are now. I should like to hear some assurances on that, too.
I am also anxious about the effects of these cuts on the introduction of JSA. The Minister will remember a debate we had on the first day of Committee when the Bill was before us. The merging of two huge bureaucracies is necessarily a cumbersome business. I hope he can give us assurances that both that and the new computer system will not suffer from these cuts in the running costs of the department. I suggest that he looks at the very wise words of Sir Michael Partridge, giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on the Child Support Act, about the conditions for introducing a major new change and whether he should add one more—that a major change should not be introduced in the middle of a budget cut.
I also want to ask him whether he can give us any assurances about privatisation of the delivery of individual services. First, if there is privatisation, whether he can guarantee that the effectiveness of the service will be as great as it is in the hands of the department. Secondly, whether he can give an assurance that costs can be lowered while nevertheless figuring in a profit margin. Those are difficult questions and I should like to know what the Minister has to say about them.
Overall, I hope the Minister will remember that the Department of Social Security is running a lifeboat service. Lifeboats are not always needed at convenient working hours. If the effectiveness of a very good department is diminished by these cuts I would regret it very much. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for putting down this Question. I have to say in the dinner break on Thursday evening it is hardly standing room only. However, this is a very important subject and I am grateful to him for putting down the Question on the Order Paper.
I start by saying, and I am sure the noble Earl would agree, that on this side of the House we fully support efficient administration and the elimination of fraud. I read with great interest a recent speech by the Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Lilley, entitled Welfare
486
State of the Art and I am extremely grateful to the Minister for sending me a copy. I propose to base my remarks on that speech, as did the noble Earl.
There is a significant sentence in the introduction:
"I want if possible to achieve this without cutting basic benefits".
Obviously that is a reference to the target of a 25 per cent. reduction in operating costs. In the ordinary meaning of language, the implication is clear that if the target is not achieved basic benefits will be cut. It would be helpful if the Minister could assure me that I have misunderstood the reference.
In his speech the Secretary of State points out that running costs account for some 4 to 5 per cent. of the total budget of £3 billion to £4 billion per annum. That used to be the case in the National Health Service, when administration accounted for about 5 per cent. of the total costs. Then we had the reforms and the internal market, and now administration costs have doubled to about 11 per cent. of the NHS budget. If the Minister does nothing else this evening he would do a great service if he could assure the House that the proposed change programme in the DSS will not be based on another crackpot notion like the internal market.
Something is missing from the argument. I do not criticise the omission because the speech was about operational matters. However, it is worth reflecting on the fact that much greater savings in the department's budget of £90 billion could be made by reducing unemployment and by tackling poverty than by saving £1 billion on administration. For example, the number of claimants on income support in May 1990 was 4.2 million, and in May 1995 it was 5.7 million. That figure comes from the May 1995 income support quarterly statistical inquiry.
The Secretary of State also points out that the department arranges £300 million per annum in child maintenance. When I read that, I could not help wondering about the administrative costs of interpreting the algebraic formulae in the Child Support Act that we all struggle with.
One of the possible savings in administration costs would result from the department having better methods of estimating the likely take-up of benefits. Two examples spring to mind. For many years I and many others battled in this House to have the old mobility allowance extended to the severely mentally handicapped. The Government's arguments against the change were based on extraordinary estimates of likely take-up. Figures of well in excess of 100,000 possible claimants were produced. We argued continually that the likely take-up was less than 10,000 people. The extension of mobility allowance was eventually introduced by the Government, and their final estimate of the likely take-up was of the order of 10,000 claimants. I do not know how many man-hours were expended in the department on working up the spurious estimates, but there must have been a substantial cost involved. Another example concerns the introduction of the disability living allowance. The Minister will have the figures, but I seem to remember that the take-up was very much greater than the department had estimated. Again, a cost was involved in that error.

487
There is a curious complementarity about the estimates of the costs associated with the department's activities. For example, the cost of fraud in income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit has been estimated at just over £2 billion, which is almost exactly the estimate of the value of unclaimed benefits.
Concern has been expressed about the true meaning of the proposition in the Change Programme that:
"We should pay people not to perform processes but to achieve results".
We all know what happened with the Child Support Agency, with its targets for benefit saving. What are the results which are envisaged? Will there not be a subconscious reluctance to ensure the full take-up of benefits both in terms of entitlement and numbers, since a less than full take-up means savings in the budget?
Another provision states:
"The ethos of public service is essential but state monopoly of provision is not".
Under that heading it is pointed out that headquarters will concentrate on what services will be provided but leave the operational managers to determine how best to provide them. I hope that there will be stringent internal procedures to prevent abuse in the letting of contracts. We all know the horror stories about the purchasing services in the NHS, the fraudulent computer contracts and the rest. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word about the internal audit procedures and other control measures where contracts are to be let in the private sector to ensure that the savings in costs envisaged are not wiped out by some form of abuse in the letting of the contracts.
So far as I can see, there is nothing in the programme about any attempts to improve the take-up of benefits. I have already referred to the estimate of £2 billion which is unclaimed. Are there programmes aimed at reducing that figure?
On the general question of saving costs, can the Minister elucidate the figures for the estimated savings from the proposed anti-fraud measures? The Budget Red Book stated that by 1988–89, social security anti-fraud measures are expected to save about £2.5 billion a year. In the social security up-rating Statement last November the claim was made that anti-fraud measures would save£2.5 billion over three years. Perhaps the Minister can explain the apparent discrepancy between the Budget Red Book and the social security up-rating statement.
Of course there are a number of major policy decisions which lead directly to increases in administration costs. I say at once that that is a problem for all parties in reviewing their policies on the provision of social security. We all know that the extension of means testing automatically increases administration costs. Means-tested benefits were 17 per cent. of benefit expenditure in 1978–79; they were 35 per cent. of benefit expenditure in 1995–96. They have doubled as a proportion of benefit expenditure.
We all know that complexity means cost. As the noble Earl said, the National Audit Office has refused to pass the department's income support account every
488
year since 1988 on the grounds that the error and fraud rates are so high. The Permanent Secretary of the department observed to the Public Accounts Committee last month that:
"We are dealing with something so inherently complicated that it's always going to be difficult to get it right".
Turning to the Social Fund, 61 per cent. of its total budget is spent on administration. Does the Social Fund get the Oscar for the highest proportion of budget spent on administration?
Reducing the number of home visits must add to the possibility of fraud. Some 6.5 million home visits were carried out in 1978–79. The number was down to 0.5 million by 1994–95. Mr. Lilley has said that the number of home visits will be increased by I million, but even the increased figure of 1.5 million has to be compared with 6.5 million 17 years ago. How is that kind of reduction in home visits supposed to lead to reduction in fraud? Indeed, does the department have figures for the trade-off between the cost of home visits and the reduction in fraud?
As I said at the outset, we share the Government's wish for efficient administration and the reduction of fraud. Everybody interested in the proper administration of the public purse wants to see efficiency, but that has to be balanced by equity. I have the feeling that the Government's proposals have a great deal to do with efficiency, however defined, but I am not convinced that equity is equally highly regarded.
7.27 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we have had a short but interesting debate on what is a very important issue. I hope that I can manage to answer the majority of the points that have been raised, if not directly as question and answer then in the course of my speech. I want to address not only some of the points made but also try to place the proposals put by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in their context and explain to the House and the two noble Lords who have taken part in the debate what we intend. In that way I hope that I can answer most of the questions that have been put to me.
We are committed to providing good quality public services while reducing the burden on the taxpayer. Indeed, the Department of Social Security has already delivered, in its administration costs, efficiency savings of £400 million since the financial year 1991–92. We are now seeking more fundamental ways of achieving business and efficiency improvements.
We are committed to delivering the right money to the right people at the right time. On the other hand, because people tend to forget that we have another side—through the Contributions Agency—we are committed to collecting the right money from the right people at the right time, and indeed every time.
That is why my right honourable friend Mr. Lilley recently announced the department's change programme in a speech to senior managers from across the department, including the executive agencies. I have placed a copy of that speech in the Library today.

489
This change programme is a key step in our long-term review of the social security system. Under the change programme we aim to deliver the social security programme both more efficiently and more effectively. That will form the basis of the department's business plan over the next three years.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The programme is not about cutting benefits. We seek to cut unnecessary costs in paying benefits. Collecting national insurance, for example, and paying the benefits are what the whole programme is looking at to see how we can improve efficiency and effectiveness.
We are certain that we cannot achieve further significant running cost savings just by more pruning or by asking our staff to work harder. We shall not make the improvements we need in operations by harder work or by racing against the clock. We need to think laterally and creatively about what we do. That is the approach that we are adopting in the change programme.
We are not talking about carrying out the same operations as now with 25 per cent. less money. Cash budgets will increase modestly in the first and most difficult coming year. But over the three-year period we shall have to improve productivity by 25 per cent. in order to absorb inflation and rising workloads. In the longer term the team which has been studying this programme estimates that savings of as much as £1 billion a year are possible.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me some alternatives: would I reach the savings figure regardless of whether the necessary changes are made? At the very beginning of the scheme the last thing I shall do is to suggest that we shall fail at both. That way leads to a failure to do either. We believe that we can achieve the efficiency savings that we seek through possible changes in the way in which we administer the system. As the changes are developed and come to fruition as proposals, Ministers will consider them all and judge them against a number of criteria. Acceptability will be one. Do we believe that they are feasible? In every case we shall make those judgments as we go along. If I may put it this way, we shall bring a number of factors to bear on all the proposals, as will our officials. As I say, I believe a little lateral thinking is the expression used for this kind of work. We are attempting to get away from the mind-set that we have always done it this way and that is the way we must continue to do it.
The noble Earl is giving me what I trust is a false choice. I believe that we shall be able to deliver both the changes and the savings that I hope we can achieve over the three-year period of the public expenditure round. As your Lordships know, public expenditure is laid out in three-year terms: this coming year, the year after and the third year. We intend to deliver this project over three years. It is not something that we intend to deliver this year or next year, although obviously some aspects will come on stream.
In considering what we do and the customers we serve, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who asked me about the link with the number of people on benefit. The noble Earl asked me the same: are we undertaking this programme oblivious of whether our
490
workload goes up or down? I shall return to this. For a number of reasons we expect our workload to increase in the years to come. It goes back to a question that the noble Earl asked me recently. He was puzzled as to why income support continued to rise when unemployment came down. He stimulated me into having a look at the figures. I shall be replying to him, but the debate gives me the opportunity to say this.
The number of unemployed people on income support is coming down. It depends how one looks at the figures. I believe that they are coming down quite quickly; some noble Lords may say that they are coming down gently. The number of people over 60 is on a slightly gently rising curve; the number of lone parents is on a fairly steep curve; and the number of disabled is on a fairly steep curve. The figure for "others" is coming down from the peak reached in 1993. So there are a number of different factors at work.
The noble Earl put the question to me about the unemployed. If the figure involved only the unemployed, the numbers are coming down as one would expect given the fact that unemployment is coming down. But there are other claimants for income support in addition to the unemployed.
We take account of the trends in the number of people on benefit in deciding how we fund the system. As I develop my argument, I hope the noble Earl will understand that while the numbers are important, they are not that important when we consider what we seek to achieve in the change programme.
The step improvements in efficiency involve three elements. First, we define the services we want to deliver then design new processes to achieve them. Secondly, we draw on the experience of staff at all levels in our organisation to generate radical ideas for change. Thirdly, we put in place systems and incentives to encourage continuous improvements. The change programme, therefore, is based on seven propositions. The first proposition is that too many current procedures are rooted in the past clerical world. Our first priority must be to review our current processes, streamline them where possible, and use developments in information technology not to execute clerical procedures more rapidly but to design new, more effective ways of delivering our business. I think that it is fair to say that in the past when we have moved to computer-based systems, to information technology systems, we have often simply translated the paper-chase that we have been used to following and have asked the computer to do that. We have not asked the question: can we do the job in a different and better way by use of the IT? That is the fundamental question.
The noble Earl asked me what process re-engineering was about. That is what process re-engineering is about. In fact, I can give him another example of process re-engineering. It will enable me to answer one or two of his questions as well.
Traditionally we have paid benefits via books and Giros. I shall not bore your Lordships by highlighting some of the problems that arise in that system. We are fundamentally re-engineering how we do that by moving over to cards and to that system of payment

491
through post offices. That allows me to assure the noble Earl that the system we are developing through the Post Office and the Benefits Agency, through the private finance initiative, will continue to allow people to have their benefits paid through the Post Office, and, of course, through their banks and building societies if that is what they wish. That method is more economic for us and has much security about it.
But we believe that the use of cards will increase the security because the card itself, whether stolen or just picked up after being lost, will not convey any information to the person who steals it. It will not say how much the benefit is worth; it will not state the address of the person who is due for benefit; it will not even give the Post Office at which benefit is due to be paid. There are a number of basic safety measures in the card which we believe will cut down the fraud that occurs through the misuse of books and Giros. Therefore the thief will have to do a lot of work before he can use the card; and the opportunist thief, as I believe many thieves are, will not find the card system very good. Immediately a stolen card is reported, we shall be able to close off the system. The Post Office will pay only if the central system tells it to do so. We shall be able to put a stop on a card more quickly than on a book. That is an example of process re-engineering.
The second proposition is that benefit entitlement rules are often outdated. They are inconsistent between benefits and, we believe, more complex than necessary. It is right that the rules on entitlement to benefit should be specified in law. However, benefit entitlement rules are often outdated, they are inconsistent between benefits and we believe they are more complex than is necessary.
While there have been successful attempts at benefit simplification, income support replacing supplementary benefit for example, each benefit has its own rules. They reflect the period the benefit was introduced. Unfortunately benefits often overlap, leading to complexities which staff and claimants find difficult to comprehend. Two benefits can treat the same fact differently. We are examining all social security rules, including benefit entitlement rules, with the prime purpose of seeing whether we can simplify their administration. That is what I believe my right honourable friend referred to when he spoke on the "Today" programme. I find the point on self-assessment quite interesting. I do not think we have any plans for people to "self-assess" in the way I understand it—in other words, to do the calculation, come out at the end with a figure and say, "That is what you owe us". We do not have plans like that at all.
The third proposition we have in mind is this. Laying down procedures in law is a barrier to efficient customer services. The prescription in legislation of procedures as well as rules makes it hard to streamline the administration of decision-making. Fundamental to the change programme will be a review of the legal basis of decision-making and appeals. We need to develop a decision-making process which leads to speedier decisions, generates more accurate assessments, will be simpler to understand, will make it easier to rectify
492
mistakes and will provide a less formal and legalistic appeals process, with legal expertise concentrated on more complex cases.
Fourthly, a proposition which I am sure noble Lords will heartily endorse is that it costs less to get things right first time than to check, revise and repeat work done wrong initially. Both noble Lords in various ways raised aspects of that. Up to 60 per cent. of income support claim forms are filled in incorrectly and 30 per cent. of all work on IS claims involves obtaining further information. We need to review the information we give to claimants and require from them, the clarity of our forms and requests for information and whether claimants can be given incentives to provide the necessary information to support their claim at the outset so that we do not have to spend time going back to them and asking for more information or clarifying information that they have already given us.
Of course there will always be those who will need assistance when claiming. We will review our customer services to focus them on those who really need help. I can say to the noble Earl that we are always re-examining our network of benefit offices all around the country. We fully intend to continue the principle of giving people access to an interview at a benefit office.
I cannot tell the noble Earl that we shall ever set in stone the current network. Things change. Sometimes offices simply have to be moved because their lease comes to an end. I cannot give him an assurance that there will be absolutely no change in the structure of benefit offices. What I can say is that we do not propose to remove the face-to-face contact from customers who need that level of support.
Interestingly enough, some surveys that we have done increasingly indicate that our customers prefer contact by telephone. That is a rising part of the way our customers like to deal with the agency.
The fifth proposition is that we need the information just once. The counterpart of requiring claimants to accept some responsibility for providing information about their claim must be that we require only the minimum necessary information from them. So we are aiming to develop a system which will establish a single personal account for each claimant with information relating to all their benefit. We will review reporting requirements. There may also be scope for reducing the obligation to inform the agency about all changes of circumstances. At present some two-thirds of changes of circumstances notified to us result in no change in the value of benefit. So we will review reporting requirements to see how many are absolutely necessary.
Sixthly, we should pay people not to perform processes but to achieve results. We can create incentives for continuous improvements in quality and efficiency. In future we must specify the services we want provided but leave those providing them to find the best way of achieving the desired results. We should fund people to achieve results which are specified in terms of quality. For operations managers and staff we aim to remove the barriers to efficiency created by unnecessary bureaucracy.

493
Seventhly, the ethos of public service is essential but state monopoly of provision is not. While our priority has to be to make decisions fairly in accordance with the law, the department should use suppliers who offer the best value for money, irrespective of whether they are in-house or private sector. We will further develop a mixed economy—as we are doing with the Benefits Agency/Post Office Counters Limited project on cards—with services provided by both the public and private sector. We intend to use the private finance initiative whenever possible to develop new projects. The performance of both public and private sector would be assessed on a comparable basis. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we are very careful about the financial aspects and financial probity of contracts that we let.
It will be some time before the impact on staff levels can be gauged. As I have tried to explain, we are at the beginning of a process of seeing what tools are available to us to change. But there is no doubt that greater productivity will mean fewer staff posts. However, on anybody's terms, we will remain a very large employer. We must do all we can to accommodate change by natural staff turnover and by voluntary movements. We must equally do all we can to help those who do move on.
The change management team spans all the agencies and department headquarters. They have discussed ideas for change with staff at all levels and they consulted businessmen who have successfully implemented similar changes in their organisations.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned his anxiety about how that would bear down on fraud. The elimination of fraud is part of our fundamental objective, not an afterthought. There is no question of sacrificing anti-fraud activity to achieve other change programme objectives. Indeed, the extra funds secured for the security programme and for combating housing benefit fraud are ring-fenced and cannot be diverted to other activities. Steps to simplify entitlement and to improve the accuracy of initial claims, to bring together all the customer information in a single customer account and other components of the change programme will all make fraud more difficult, not easier. And it will enable our staff to be directly involved in the battle against fraud. I hope that assures the noble Lord on that particular point.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. Will the Minister deal, if necessary in writing, with the point on the apparent anomaly between the figure quoted in the Budget Red Book of £2.5 billion a year; in the up-rating the figure was £2.5 billion over three years for successful anti-fraud measures.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think I shall have to write to the noble Lord. If I gave the figures I have, which are over different periods, it would cause even more confusion. My figures are over a two-year period when we shall spend something like £300 million extra, and in return for that we expect to achieve something like £2 billion in fraud savings. I will certainly write to the noble Lord to clarify the position and make sure that we are both discussing the same time period.
494
I discussed the question of self-assessment. The noble Earl is always keen to ask me if I have "netted off' costs. I can assure him in this case that the running costs of the department do indeed include redundancy costs. Our objective, as I mentioned earlier, will he to reduce those costs to an absolute minimum; and, if we can possibly do so, to avoid them altogether.
I believe I answered the question about benefit cards being stolen once we change to the card system. I hope also that I have assured the noble Earl in regard to benefit offices in rural areas.
I should have guessed that the noble Earl would ask me about the DSS research budget. We make our decisions about research every year on the basis of what we need as research. That position will continue.
I believe that the change programme marks a significant step forward for the delivery of benefits and the collection of contributions and child support. Indeed, the proposals bought forward by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Lilley, have had some unlikely backers. I cannot end the evening—the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would not expect me to do so—without making some brief reference to a leaked letter from Mr. Andrew Smith, who is the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, to Mr. Chris Smith who is my right honourable friend's shadow in the party opposite down the corridor. Mr. Andrew Smith says that he has been making some informal inquiries about the feasibility of the plans. He says that the advice that he is getting, which is necessarily incomplete, nevertheless suggests that savings in running costs of that magnitude are perfectly feasible, given the opportunities for efficiency gains and the scale of investment already undertaken. But the timetable for introducing them is, to say the least, challenging. I read out the last sentence because that is the slight caveat and I did not want the noble Lord to rise and ask me to read out the text.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord could not resist doing that. Why do the Government always refuse to comment when a government letter is leaked but are always anxious to comment when an opposition letter is leaked?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: For the same reason, my Lords, as the Opposition are not very keen to comment on their letters which are leaked. The point that I intend to make, in addition to the slightly teasing one that the shadow chief secretary of the party opposite feels that those things are possible, is that he also says that they are challenging. With that I totally and absolutely agree. So I comment on his leaked letter by agreeing with it in that regard. They are challenging but we believe they are possible.
The change programme, which I have tried to outline this evening, will mix the best elements of the public and private sectors. It will share responsibilities more efficiently between the state and the claimant or contributor. We have not in fact dealt with the other side of the department's business, which is the collection of the national insurance contributions. We believe that by those means we can deliver a service of higher quality,

495
designed to use the modern management techniques and also the information technology techniques which are now available, and do so at a lower cost. By using those modern techniques, we can improve hugely on the efficiency of our current system which, as I said at the beginning, is very heavily paper based, has been built up over half a century and has never been scrutinised right across the board in the way in which we intend to examine it over the next three years.
I hope that I have answered all the points. I promise to write to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about one point that he made which I feel it would be better for me to study and check the figures. I hope that your Lordships are assured that this is a programme that we believe can be delivered, save money for the taxpayer and at the same time improve the service that we give to the people who depend on us.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that he will allow me to thank him for a very forthcoming and thoughtful answer. Perhaps I may ask whether, when he comes to the review of conditions of entitlement that he mentioned, he can say whether there will be any possibility of informal all-party consultation before they are set in stone.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his kind words about my contribution this evening. It is possible—but I would not go further than that—that we may want to make some changes which will require consultation: consultation with SSAC, for example, and consultation in the wider world. I should not rule out consultation, if we are dealing with issues on which one normally consults. If we are bringing together the different benefit rules and trying to harmonise them, we may require secondary legislation to bring them all into the same line. I do not think I can go further than that in reply to the noble Earl this evening.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.54 to 8.5 p.m.]

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 72 [Power to publish guidance relating to avoidance of unjust or unfair treatment or interference with privacy]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 61, line 14, leave out ("The BSC may draw up") and insert ("It shall be the duty of the BSC to draw up, and from time to time review,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 181, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 183, 186, 187, 191, 193, 194, 197, 205 and 206. In the interests of saving time, and with your Lordships'
496
consent, I should like to speak to all of the government amendments now. I shall, of course, move them as we come to them. Your Lordships will recall that in Committee I undertook to consider further a number of amendments to this part of the Bill. Most of the Government's amendments are a result of that consideration.
Amendments Nos. 181, 183, 186 and 191 seek to address the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner; namely, whether the drawing up and review of the guidance should be mandatory. On further reflection the Government have come to the view that such guidance should indeed be mandatory. Similarly, the Government studied further the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that the BSC, in drawing up its guidance on fairness, be required to consult broadcasting and regulatory bodies and any others it considered appropriate. Amendment No. 187 seeks to create such a requirement.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 193 and 194. A short time ago the Secretary of State met the chairmen of the existing BSC and BCC. One point that emerged from the meeting was the question of whether the ring-fencing of the work of the fairness committee might be excessive. As I indicated in Committee, it was felt that the Bill as drafted might unnecessarily fetter the discretion of the commission in determining the allocation of responsibilities. These amendments, which remove subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 77 and amend subsection (1), are intended to create flexibility in the area.
Amendment No. 197 follows a proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. It is intended to allow the BSC, at its discretion, to consider complaints submitted in a form other than written thereby facilitating the submission of complaints from the sensory or otherwise impaired.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, introduced an amendment in Committee to prevent broadcasters making comment alongside any summary of a BSC finding which they were required to publish or broadcast. The noble Baroness, your Lordships will recall, offered the example of a finding by the Broadcasting Complaints Commission against the programme "The Cook Report" where the broadcaster, in broadcasting a summary of the finding, accompanied it with negative comment by the programme's presenter, Roger Cook. I understand that the ITC subsequently required that the summary be broadcast again, this time without additional comment, and that was done. Nevertheless, the point is a good one. Amendment No. 205 is intended to ensure that broadcasters may not comment alongside any published or broadcast summary of a BSC finding which they are required to make. That would not, of course, restrict the broadcasters' freedom to comment elsewhere on such a finding.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my noble friend Lord Caldecote proposed an amendment requiring the BSC to publish reports monthly. As I said at the time, the Government believe that such a requirement would

497
fetter the discretion of the BSC to publish its reports more or less often where appropriate. However, the Government accept that reports should, in general, be published monthly. Amendment No. 206 makes the Government's intention clear while allowing the BSC the discretion to deviate from it where appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Viscount on the Woolsack can give us some guidance. I hope this will not be regarded by your Lordships as my speech but I think we need guidance. If Amendment No. 181 is accepted by the House, does that mean that Amendment No. 182 may still be called or cannot be called?
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 182 may still be called.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, Amendment No. 182 comes after Amendment No. 181 and therefore we are not dealing with it at this stage.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, before we adjourned, we were advised that, if Amendment No. 181 were passed, Amendment No. 182 could not be moved.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise. It is my mistake. If Amendment No. 181 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 182. I thank noble Lords for calling my attention to that point.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for meeting at least one of the concerns which were expressed in the course of the Committee stage; that is, to make the mandatory "shall" or "has a duty to" take the place of the more permissive sense of "may" in the context of asking the BSC to draw up codes of behaviour—in other words, to make this an obligation on the BSC and not simply an option. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that.
But there was a second element to our concern. It was the anxiety about the somewhat woolly concept of guidelines. We hoped that the Government would agree to substitute for guidelines and guidance a clear requirement for a code, a code which would have to be observed on pain of punitive sanctions if it were broken. It may be worth reminding your Lordships that in the Scott Report we had a prime example of the dangers of giving people guidelines rather than clear and unambiguous rules or codes.
I am aware that the Government take the view that the present wording will achieve the required purpose. I am not convinced. I would have said this in speaking to my amendment, but, in the light of the advice that it cannot be called if Amendment No. 181 is accepted, I must say that we are still not requiring with enough clarity and lack of ambiguity the BSC to draft a code of practice and not just guidelines or guidance. I appreciate that the words in the Bill follow closely the words of the 1990 Act and therefore might be thought to be to some extent engraved in stone. But there is one important difference which may be more important than seems to be the case at first glance.
498
The 1990 Act requires the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to draw up a code giving guidance as to the rules to he observed. That might be behind the Government's case that it will achieve what it is we want to achieve. But the present Bill does something different. It provides that the BSC may draw up guidance relating to principles to he observed. Principles are a very different thing from practice. I am not quite sure that the 1990 Act wording, if it were in place, would not meet our concern. But I think that the wording in the present Bill does not.
Although my amendment would have gone further than the wording of the 1990 Act I concede that the wording in the 1990 Act has resulted in the establishment in the long run of mandatory codes drawn up by the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. If the Government would undertake to repeat that wording, that would go some way to meeting our concerns.
In the light of the fact that Amendment No. 181 has been called before my amendment—and to that extent the noble Lord the Minister has shot my fox, or at least severely wounded it—I would need to consider what it is that the new wording implies. It may he necessary to return to this subject at Third Reading unless the Minister can assure me that at least the wording of the 1990 Act will be repeated in this Bill so that we have some chance of a mandatory code being drawn up. Having said that, I am grateful to the noble Lord for meeting our requirements. But whatever code is drawn up should be obligatory on the BSC and not optional.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Caldecote, who cannot be with us tonight, moved the amendments which now stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—Amendment No. 182 and others grouped with it—my noble friend Lord Inglewood replied in this way. Before I quote what he said perhaps I may say how greatly I admire his handling of the Bill and everything else he has ever done since he reached the Front Bench. He is such a close friend that I am very reluctant indeed to express disagreement with him. But I have to point out that on 15th February he said:
"Before turning to the four amendments, I should like to begin by making quite clear that the Government believe that there must be proper rules"—
I emphasise the word "rules"—
"relating to appropriate standards of broadcasting, and there must be proper enforcement of those rules, supported if necessary by appropriate disciplinary action".—[Official Report, 15/2/96; col. 812.]
At the end of the debate on the amendment, he said:
"I would ask my noble friend not to press this amendment at this stage because I should like to consider it further and the suggested form of words about review and bring the Government's response back at Report stage".—[Official Report, 15/2/96; col. 813.]
All I can say is that, in the light of what he said on that occasion, this is a very disappointing response.
I say that for this reason; first, because the word "guidance" gets us nowhere. It creates no legal obligation. The BBC would not he obliged to follow the

499
guidance even if the Broadcasting Standards Commission were obliged to give it, as it will be obliged to give it. On the other hand, a statutory code of practice, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and my by noble friend Lord Caldecote, creates an obligation—an obligation that has to be met. The BBC would then have to apply it faithfully and, if it failed to do so, those responsible would be penalised accordingly in order to fulfil what my noble friend Lord Inglewood said at col. 812 about,
"proper enforcement of those rules".
Therefore, it is somewhat regrettable for us that we have to consider the government amendment first and independently and that, if that is carried, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, cannot be moved. I hope that the noble Lord will come back to it at Third Reading, because it is a vital matter of principle. Although we are already at a late hour, I regard this as one of the most important matters raised in this long Bill.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I think that the Government have this about right. When I was Chief Whip of a minority government—it really was a minority government—in another place—
Lord Donoughue: A very good one.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. When I was Chief Whip of a minority government in another place, I was pressed very hard by one of my Whips to introduce a set of rules which could be applied in deciding whether someone should be granted a pair or leave of absence. I said, "You can't have this because you are trying to impose an absolutely rigid structure on a situation where there are a number of variables, including human variables. It is not possible to do this sort of thing". It may seem to be the counsel of perfection, but one is imposing a straitjacket which would stifle all enterprise and produce a worse result than what the Government are now suggesting.
Lord McNally: My Lords, at Committee stage I was reproved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for being illogical in my opposition to some of the ideas that he and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, were putting forward. As noble Lords can imagine, for a Liberal Democrat to be called illogical is almost as big an insult as saying that to Mr. Spock in "Star Trek". So, I had a sleepless night until I was able to get to Hansard and check the things that I had said, though the result may be more of a tribute to the skills of Hansard than anything else.
What I was trying to say at various stages in Committee is still what I and my party believe at this stage of the Bill; namely, that the Government's approach to matters of regulation has been broadly correct. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that he wants a light rein on regulation. Although I understand his reasons for listening to the experience and wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and his colleagues, I still believe that he is right to resist the
500
full logic of what they are pressing because even tonight we have heard of codes, punitive sanctions, disciplinary actions and obligations.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has just said, this is not the way things work in the real world and it is not the way they will work if we want to get the best out of our broadcasters and broadcasting systems. It seems to me that we have given rights and responsibilities to the governors, the broadcasting authority and to the ITC, which, if they were allowed to operate in a rational way, would give all the protection that any reasonable society would want. What I hear from some of the proponents who urge the Minister further and further on these matters is counsel which would over-regulate. They would not just protect the citizen, but stifle the cultural, artistic and other aspects of broadcasting.
At Committee I felt at some stages like the boy on the burning deck pointing out that there was another point of view. But, to mix my metaphors, the Minister in his summing up, came like Blücher at Waterloo with what I thought was a very rational approach to these matters. I urge him and the Government to resist temptation to proceed more strongly in these matters. We should keep the light regulation and we shall get the best from our broadcasters.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is not being extremely illogical in what he has just said? He said that one cannot have codes, punishments or sanctions because they stifle the creative instinct. The Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority both have such codes, which are in operation and which work. If they are broken by a broadcasting company, sanctions and punishments are available and are used.
If the noble Lord is saying that that is at variance with the creative instincts of broadcasters, then I wonder how the independent television companies and radio stations are doing so well and have been so creative and successful. I believe that we are back to where we were at Committee stage. The noble Lord is going much too far in his clear and perhaps admirable dislike of sanctions, punishment and obligations.
Lord McNally: My Lords, just very briefly, with the leave of the House—I thank the noble Baroness for keeping me on track—I suppose the bottom line is that I would rather be logically liberal than authoritarian right. That is a matter of choice. There is some contradiction in what the noble Lord has just said. If the regulators are doing so well and producing such good results, why do they go on this endless quest for yet another body with more sanctions in order to get the perfect system that they are constantly seeking?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord was last time, but he is now totally illogical. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, was referring to the success of the regulating bodies with independent television and radio. We are discussing whether the current system, as regards the BBC, is adequate. That is quite a different issue. Many people believe that the governors, who occupy the post of regulating themselves, have not been efficient. When we come, as I hope we shall, at Third

501
Reading, to give instances of cases where, in the interests of the political views of individual producers, the BBC has flouted historical truth and other matters, the House may take a very different view.
Lord McNally: My Lords, with permission—
Noble Lords: No!
Viscount Astor: My Lords, perhaps I may make one small comment on my noble friend's amendment. The advantage of the debate that we are having this evening is that it has shown to me with absolute clarity the disadvantages of having a Charter and Agreement for the BBC. When we had the debate in this House we were able to discuss these issues, but we were unable to amend the Charter and Agreement.
I am as guilty as anybody of being a supporter of the BBC having a Charter and Agreement, so I accept any criticism that anyone may make. This debate has shown the weakness of that, because we cannot amend the provisions. My noble friend has listened very carefully to the anxieties of your Lordships expressed at Committee stage and he has come forward with his Amendment No. 181. I accept that my noble friend Lord Renton believes that it may not go as far as he would like but I believe that it goes a very long way, because it ensures that a code, not may, but will, be drawn up, and that is a very important point.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, if we have a problem with the BBC's Charter and its codes, we should consider what the position is, because they are new. While the House may not have had the opportunity to amend these documents, their content is fairly specific. The Charter states at paragraph 7(f), among other things, that the governors are to:
"ensure that the Corporation and its employees and all programme makers engaged by the Corporation comply with the provisions of any code which the Corporation is required to draw up for the treatment of controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality and comply with any other code or guidelines applicable to programme content and standards".
When one considers the Agreement between the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the BBC, there are further paragraphs which are relevant. I quote from paragraph 5.1(c), which states that the corporation shall:
"treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality, both in the Corporation's news services and in the more general field of programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political or industrial controversy".
Paragraph 5.1(d) states:
"do not include anything which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling".
Those are very strict instructions and they form part of the BBC's Charter and Agreement with the Government. That happens to be a new Agreement. We may not have been able to amend the provisions—I accept that may have been a weakness—but I am not sure that I understand how those words could have been reinforced. However, there is a case at the very least for saying that the codes should be allowed to work before we try to impose something further upon the situation.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I tend to approach this as a student of organisational pathology. Last week, in the course of a very long and, for my part, amusing and entertaining debate, we examined the life-cycle of a cock-up from conception through gestation to birth, from childhood through infancy to adolescence, and from maturity through senility and finally to a post-mortem at the hands of the coroner, Sir Richard Scott. At the heart of all that lay the weasel word, "guidelines".
I suppose we are all agreed that you can delegate authority but not responsibility. You cannot make somebody else answerable for that for which you are answerable. However, we live in a hierarchy of delegated responsibility from the nation to its Parliament, from the Parliament to its Government, from the Government to their Civil Service and to such quangos as its buds off from time to time. In the middle level of that hierarchy, people at one level tend to accept as excuses from the lower level the reasons that they hope to employ themselves when excusing themselves to a still higher level. That connivance with one another's shortcomings is what characterises a hierarchical organisation.
I suggest that your Lordships accept the principle that the Ten Commandments are not guidelines to a relation with the Almighty to be interpreted as occasion requires in the light of the circumstances prevailing but are in some sense absolute. We want some kind of absolute direction that there is going to be right trouble if this is breached.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I rise on two points. The first is procedural. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to his fox having been shot. I think a better metaphor came from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, when he referred to Blücher at Waterloo. What the Minister has done is to outflank and envelop the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, so that he is totally encircled and unable to move anything.
Secondly, when I come to address the terribly difficult problem of impartiality and all that it concerns, my mind goes back to the 1970s and the many discussions we had in the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting. Having re-read the committee's report, I find myself much nearer the noble Lord, Lord McNally, than others in the sense that, as with the Scott Report, one can deduce almost anything from it both in favour of impartiality and in favour of really good, sound rules.
In the past 20 years things have moved somewhat further away from impartiality and consideration for the guidelines laid down. How many times have we heard the excuse given, "We have done nothing contrary to the guidelines; they are just guidelines"—in other words, they can be flouted just as much as is liked. That is a common thing for broadcasters to say. And they are bound to say it, because over the past 50 years there has been a great change in the nature of what is said and shown on television and in broadcasting generally. It is almost inconceivable to us now that the rigid rules which Lord Reith—Sir John Reith, as he was then—laid

503
down could be applied today. Let us not forget that when, during the General Strike, the then Archbishop of Canterbury wanted to broadcast to the nation his request was refused by Sir John Reith on the advice of the Prime Minister. There have been quite a number of similar examples. I am sure that the House would not want to return to that kind of rigidity.
At the same time, a great change came in the late 1950s and early 1960s when Mr. Greene was the director general. Younger broadcasters argued that the BBC in particular had a duty to represent the whole nation and not merely the governing part of the nation and to represent what younger people were feeling. That greatly changed notions of impartiality. It was no longer necessary for one programme in itself to be impartial. It could be as partial as it liked so long as there was at some time a programme of approximately the same nature which would state, as it were, the other side of the case, not necessarily on that issue but on general political problems. It is the failure—or the perceived failure—of the BBC sometimes to honour that obligation that has led to impasse. As I said, in the end I shall probably abstain from voting on the issue. I believe that it can be solved only by good will between the chairman of the governors and the director general. It is really the director general who is responsible for what goes on at the BBC. The governors have a limited role in their regulatory function.
It has been said that the governors took the extreme sanction of sacking the director general of the BBC some years ago, but they cannot go on doing that and they certainly cannot do it on every occasion a producer undoubtedly infringes the guidelines. What, then, is to be done? It depends on the hierarchy of the BBC—the director general at the top and the leaders of the various divisions in that heavily over-bureaucratised organisation. It depends on them. That alone is the way in which some change of heart can come about.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene at this stage because I fear that I may confuse matters more than is already the case. However, the position is not clear. And there is a consensus across the Chamber that we should get the matter right in order to protect the viewer and complainant.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, says that the wording of the Broadcasting Act 1990 would, I paraphrase, "do" him. That Act refers to a code under the Broadcasting Standards Council. I refer to Section 152. We are dealing now with Clause 72 of the Bill. The provisions of the 1990 Act which relate to a code deal with practices to be followed in the portrayal of violence, sexual conduct and matters of taste and decency. The BSC was required by duty to draw up a code of practice. The broadcasting complaints section of the 1990 Act shows that there is no requirement to draw up a code of practice.
The amendment relates to Clause 72. I believe—I may have one or two words wrong—that the clause is a direct lift from the 1990 Act, which deals with broadcasting complaints. There was no code of practice
504
requirement for the BSC to draw up in the 1990 Act. With the wording that the Minister has proposed, the Bill introduces a requirement to draw up guidelines covering unjust or unfair treatment, or unwarranted infringement of privacy. That protection for the complainant is not in the 1990 Act.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, or the Minister will respond to that point, because it seems to me that the Bill is great step forward from the 1990 Act, if I am reading it correctly. Certainly the BSC did not draw up a code of practice, and it was not required to do so under the 1990 Act. The Bill will require it to draw up guidelines. The Minister might be the person to answer that point. Am I correct in my understanding? If I am, it may be something upon which we should reflect because the Bill is a step forward for the complainant.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I realise that I may be looked at fiercely by the Prussian marshals on the Front Bench, but with the leave of the House I should like to enlighten the noble Baroness and the House. The sections to which I was referring are on page 8 of the Broadcasting Act 1990. It states:
"The Commission shall draw up"—
that is, the Independent Television Commission—
"and, from time to time review, a code giving guidance as to the rules to be observed",
and so on. That covers all the issues of standards, taste, decency, violence and so on. Under the section relating to radio broadcasting it states:
"The authority shall draw up and, from time to time review, a code",
and so on. So both authorities set up under the 1990 Act were required to draw up and review a code giving guidance as to the rules to be observed, not the principles.
The difference between the 1990 Act and the Bill is precisely that—one required the two authorities to draw up a code of rules which were to be obeyed on risk of punishment if they were broken. The Bill does not do that. It is that that I am seeking to correct.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I apologise to the House, but I do not understand the rules as to whether I can come back. That answer did not address the point that I was raising. The commission is the ITC. In the Bill we are talking about the Broadcasting Standards Commission.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am advised that the noble Baroness was correct in what she said. I am also not sure that we are not at cross purposes.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I think we are at cross purposes. Perhaps I may beg the leave of the House; the noble Baroness was right in what she said. She was referring to the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. I was referring to the regulatory bodies—the ITC and the Radio Authority. I am trying to find a way of making the ITC and Radio Authority rules applicable to the BBC.

505
The only way to do that is through the Broadcasting Standards Commission, and that is what I am seeking to do. I was not for one moment suggesting that the noble Baroness was wrong; she was absolutely right, but it was not the point that I was on.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, first, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has been speaking to his Amendments Nos. 182 and 184 and my Amendment No. 183.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, no.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thought that we all were.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, indeed, that is what I thought was happening. In the end of the debate on my amendment I wanted to address some remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in respect of his Amendments Nos. 182 and 184, because they tie together. I must begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for having shared with me some of thinking behind what he has proposed. That has been helpful.
As your Lordships will be aware, we have taken on board the point about making mandatory the drawing up and review of the BSC's guidance on fairness. I have just moved an amendment to that effect. The issue that we have been debating is whether the guidance in question should be renamed "codes". That is what is contained in Amendments Nos. 182 and 184, as I understand it. That is the nub of the issue.
Your Lordships will recall that we had a discussion about this in Committee. I explained that I had doubts about whether such a change would make a substantial difference. I said that it might cause difficulties. However, I agreed, as my noble friend Lord Renton correctly pointed out, to consider the point further. I may be ducking it, but I am not going to treat the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, in a Prussian manner, because I request your Lordships' leave to bring back a response to that point on Third Reading.
I should like to make a couple of general points. First, we are anxious to ensure that the work of the BSC does not become a substitute for Parliament in creating the law of the land. Our starting point in analysing the matters must be the words of statute and the BBC Charter and Agreement. Further explanatory material, whoever draws it up, can explain the basic legal requirements which apply, but should not purport to define them. That is true even where there is a separate collateral and binding obligation on broadcasters, their employees and programme makers to abide by the provisions in question.
In that context, it is interesting to look at the BBC because in the case of the BBC the governors must ensure that the corporation treats controversial subjects accurately and impartially and does not include anything which offends against good taste and decency. At the same time, the governors are separately obliged to ensure that employees and programme makers comply with provisions relating to proper conduct, which are designed to stop those forms of mischief occurring.
506
It is important that we are clear here. In a number of cases where we look at regulatory systems for broadcasters, there are two parallel systems at work. First, there is a basic obligation to ensure that certain ways of broadcasting are carried out. To that effect, various "codes"—as I loosely describe them—are drawn up. Those codes are drawn up to assist the broadcasters to achieve the fundamentals, such as ensuring accuracy and impartiality and that there is no tastelessness or indecency.
At the same time, in parallel, there is, in a number of instances, an obligation on those involved in making the programmes to adhere to the codes. That obligation is entirely separate from the first obligation to which I referred. It is because of that inter-relationship between those two separate obligations that we sometimes get into a muddle with the nomenclature used.
The second point is that whatever form of words is used in that context it is important that there should be consistency and a sensible and coherent read across between the relevant legal provisions that pertain.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he be so good as to answer the point I made, by reminding me of what he said in Committee, that there must be proper rules relating to appropriate standards of broadcasting. He says, in effect, that guidance and rules are synonymous. He used the word "codes" in the same way. Of course a statutory code has the force of law, but mere guidance does not. Then he went on to say that there must be proper enforcement of those rules, supported if necessary by appropriate disciplinary action. How is that achieved by his amendment?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. But, if he will forgive me for saying so, he has run ahead of the debate. Without wishing to expand on a point upon which I shall expand later, there are regulators for the broadcasters. It is for the regulators to regulate and impose sanctions where appropriate. The core of this system is the principle that we have regulators. In parallel with those regulators is the new BSC, which is a combination of the old BSC and the BCC. The first organisation benchmarks standards and the second is a "user friendly" means for a private individual to see whether he is being traduced by broadcasters. The old BSC, the old BCC and the new Broadcasting Standards Commission are not regulators.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Burnham): My Lords, if Amendment No. 183 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 184.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 61, leave out line 21.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if Amendment No. 185 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 186.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 185:
Page 61, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The BSC shall publish the codes currently in force, monitor their implementation and report annually on their findings in their report made under section 84.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I could say that it is now my turn to do a bit of outflanking and encircling but I do not propose to do anything of the kind. I believe that the whole subject is so interlocked that I would prefer to bring the whole matter back on Third Reading. Obviously, it must be done in a certain form, recognising the fact that the Minister's amendment has been carried. I do not wish to move my amendment.
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 61, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 61, line 23, at end insert—
("() Before drawing up or revising the guidance, the BSC shall consult—

(a) each broadcasting or regulatory body, and

(b) such other persons as appear to the BSC to be appropriate.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Preparation by BSC of code relating to broadcasting standards generally]:
[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]
Clause 75 [General functions of BSC in relation to complaints]:
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 63, line 5, after ("treatment") insert ("of individuals, of bodies of individuals or of matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current public policy").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the intervention from the flanks prevented me from speaking to my earlier amendments, I hope that the House will bear with me if I develop the arguments for this amendment at some length. They are connected with the amendments that I would have moved, although not relying upon them.
It is a matter of regret that, once again, one is rising to move substantial amendments at this hour of night on what is usually the last sitting day of the week. However, I must do my best. In moving the amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 192 and 195, which are closely connected. By implication, I shall speak to a number of consequential amendments, which are Nos. 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203 and 204.
When I withdrew the amendments at the end of the Committee stage, I did so, as I said at the time, on the understanding that the Government would look at the problem again and, if they did not like the amendments, try to find some way of meeting my anxieties and those of my colleagues. I am reintroducing the amendments at this stage because that has not happened.
Experience of both the BBC Charter and Agreement passing through this House on a Take Note Motion, and experience of this Bill, has made it clear that in this particular respect the Government are determined to get this legislation through Parliament as far as possible unchanged. One cannot blame them for that but I hope that they will not blame me and my colleagues for returning repeatedly to the charge.
This Bill and the Charter and Agreement of the BBC will set the agenda well into the next century. Therefore, in my view it is important that the regulating broadcasting regime is, as far as possible, robust and effective. In Committee I explained the purpose of the amendments at some length but at this time of night I shall not weary the House by repeating them in full. I simply remind your Lordships that they are designed to correct a clear and persistent anomaly in the regulatory arrangements.
Perhaps I may begin by going back to the Broadcasting Act 1990. That recognised the important principle that broadcasters in both television and radio should be independently regulated in the public interest. In pursuit of that, it replaced the old Independent Broadcasting Authority, which was both a broadcaster and a regulator—I am speaking of the commercial broadcasting sector—with the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, thus clearly and unequivocally separating the functions of the broadcaster and the regulator. However, the Government have not pursued the clear logic of that position in the case of the BBC.
The BBC's new Charter and its accompanying Agreement, which recently passed unchanged through this House and which the Minister has now told us is a closed chapter—in other words, we can do nothing about it until there is a new Charter and Agreement and even then we shall not be able to do much about it—perpetuate the system in which the governors of the BBC, who run the corporation and therefore are the broadcasters, are also supposed to be the regulators. In the country as a whole among viewers and listeners there is a widespread belief that that is an impossible situation. It creates a built-in conflict of interest and in the event of complaints from the public about programmes it makes the governors of the BBC judge and jury in their own case, to use the usual convenient cliché.
Perhaps I may quote from the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, which is an important pressure group. In a communication to me, it stated:
"The Governors will be required to oversee both the BBC's public service activities and its growing range of commercial ventures, an impossible situation which will inevitably lead to conflicts of interest and is likely to penalise both areas".
It may be interesting to note that the patrons of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer include the noble Lords, Lord Eames and Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, which is a powerful and one might also say ecumenical group.
We are now faced with two options. The first is that we can live with that regime in which the BBC governors are both broadcasters and regulators, or are supposed to be. It may be that we shall have to live with

509
that for 10 years or more. Certainly on present thinking it will be well into the next millennium. The Government are asking us to give them a chance and to live with it. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has just asked us to do it: "Give them a chance". Yes, but for how long? We can either do that or we can ensure that the Bill gives us a last chance to establish a consistent regulatory regime in which the BBC, like every commercial broadcasting organisation, is independently regulated.
So far throughout the debates both on the Bill and on the Motion concerning the BBC Charter I have not heard a single convincing argument against the option of an independent regulator for the BBC. It might be appropriate to mention that last week I received a letter from the Consumers Association, which represents a substantial body of public opinion. I will read one brief passage:
"We are aware of your support for the BBC to fall under the remit of an independent regulator, and hope that you will continue to argue the case. There are wide-ranging consumer concerns and it is important that these are dealt with now to ensure that the Bill looks to the future rather than requiring legislation at a later stage".
That represents a fairly broad spectrum of opinion. I repeat that I have heard no convincing argument against the concept.
However, perhaps we may consider the objections put forward by the Government and others to what I regard as a logical and practical proposal. One is that it increases the number of regulatory bodies. That buzz has been going round the Chamber for the past few weeks. But it is not so. The Bill wisely reduces the number of regulators by amalgamating the BCC with the BSC to make the new Broadcasting Standards Commission. As I have made clear on a number of occasions, and I shall bore the House with it again, my preferred solution would be a single regulatory authority to cover the entire broadcasting scene. Clearly, that is outside the scope of the Bill.
All my amendments do is to give the new regulatory body, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, teeth to do no more than the Secretary of State for National Heritage is already on record as wishing to do. She has said that she wishes to strengthen the role of the BSC. That is precisely what my amendments seek to do. On the other hand, as the "Today" programme on the BBC sometimes says, there has come into my possession a letter from the Secretary of State for National Heritage, addressing a Member of your Lordships' House. She states:
"As you know, I do not believe that the new BSC should take on a regulatory function".
What is it then? What is the BSC for if it is not to consider complaints, adjudicate on them and ensure that if the complaint is upheld the cause of it is not repeated? What is that if it is not regulation? That is precisely what a regulator does. It is what the ITC does among other things. It is what the Radio Authority does.
Another objection is that the new strengthened role for the BSC implied by the amendments would require substantial extra resources and extra financial investment in the Broadcasting Standards Commission. To that I make three brief observations. First, I do not
510
believe that the cost needs to be prohibitive. The ITC and the Radio Authority already carry out the full panoply of regulatory duties with relatively small resources and in the case of the Radio Authority—of which I speak with personal experience—with a staff of 30 people who conduct the whole business of regulating the commercial radio broadcasting scene. Secondly, some of the extra cost might be met from savings in the BBC's internal complaints procedure. It must cost a little money and would not be necessary if we had effective independent regulation. Thirdly, a modest increase—and that is all it would be—in the resources required would be a small price to pay for a sensible, effective and independent regulatory system. I have already mentioned the other argument advanced by the Government that we ought to give them a chance.
I wish to clarify one point in case there should be doubt in the minds of any of my noble colleagues. My quarrel is not with the Chairman of the Governors of the BBC, nor his successor. Both I know as men of ability and integrity. My quarrel is not with the Governors themselves and not even with the powers they have been given in the Charter. My quarrel is with an inherently flawed system which has not worked in the past and is unlikely to work,in the future.
In a recent speech to the Television Society, the Secretary of State for National Heritage acknowledged that and said that it is time for the Governors of the BBC to step back from the management of the corporation and act more as regulators in the public interest. If, as that seems to suggest, it is the Government's policy to separate the broadcaster from the regulator in the BBC, as they have rightly done in the commercial sector, why are they so opposed to the amendments which seek to do precisely that? Since the Charter and the Agreement of the BBC are now to be considered a closed chapter, I can only identify the Broadcasting Standards Commission as the available instrument for doing so.
I conclude by reminding the House that the three amendments are interdependent. They are designed to empower the Broadcasting Standards Commission to adjudicate not only on complaints about standards of taste and decency, but also on complaints about fairness, objectivity and impartiality, including complaints on such matters in BBC programmes. I also seek to remove the curious provision which seems to me to be totally lacking in logic that, while complaints about taste and decency may be made by any listener or viewer, complaints about fairness and objectivity may be made only by people who are directly affected. I totally fail to see the logic of that position. I have been infinitely more offended, and I know others who have felt the same, by a programme which has been inaccurate and biased on a historical or political subject than by all the taste and decency arguments that one can advance.
In that context, noble Lords may have seen an excellent and very persuasive brief recently circulated by the BBC entitled, The BBC: A Responsible Broadcaster, which sets out a summary of the corporation's approach. In a covering note—much to my gratification—the corporation expresses the view that its producers' guidelines would make Lord Chalfont's amendments

511
unnecessary. However, I am afraid that that begs the whole central question. The concern of those who think as I do is not with the "Producers' Guidelines for Factual Programmes", to give it its full title. The guidelines are clear; they are comprehensive; and they are unambiguous on subjects of impartiality and taste and decency. They are models of precision, clarity and force. The problem is that no one who studies the guidelines, as I have with great care, could possibly argue that they have been consistently observed; on the contrary, they have been consistently ignored and flouted. If the governors have been unable or unwilling to enforce them in the past, what confidence can we have that they will do so in the future?
Will the Government at least concede that there is a real problem here? That would, I believe, be a start towards finding a solution. Do the Government agree that we have a real problem and one to which they are prepared to give serious attention? It may well be—and I have no pride of authorship—that my proposed solution is not the ideal one. There may be other ways to deal with the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has considered the matter and I believe that he may move an amendment proposing an ombudsman.
Another possibility is one that seems to me to be eminently practical; namely, the establishment of some kind of independent panel separate from and outside the BBC bureaucracy to advise the governors on viewers' and listeners' complaints. At present, part of the problem is that, when a complaint comes to the BBC, the panel which has the remit to consider it and advise the governors consists of BBC officials. That seems to me to be a recipe for the kind of regime that we have now.
If the Minister cannot or does not wish to respond positively tonight to the amendments, I hope that he will undertake to examine the position between now and Third Reading and come back with some serious ideas for dealing with a problem which is—and I ask him to accept this—causing serious concern not only in your Lordships' House but in the broader constituency of the country as a whole.
Before I conclude, perhaps I may first echo what has been said in the House during the whole proceedings on the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on the style with which he has conducted the legislation. My admiration is not simply for the courtesy and the consideration which he has shown to everyone involved, but also for the extraordinary mastery that he has shown with what is an extremely complicated and difficult subject.
Finally, I should like to deal with the objection that the changes which I propose would have two undesirable consequences. The first is that I would be placing programme-makers in some form of double jeopardy; in other words, they would have two regulatory bodies over them. But that already happens in the commercial sector and, indeed, has been so since 1990. I do not see why the BBC should be uniquely protected from it. The second objection is that what I propose would open the floodgates to a torrent of
512
frivolous complaints. That has not happened in the commercial sector and, again, I see no reason why it should happen in this case. I beg to move.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I want to follow the theme outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as regards the 1990 Act. Many people have praised that legislation but it has also been much abused. Indeed, everyone seems to say, "That ghastly 1990 Act". In fact, it has worked rather well. I remember being told by Liz Forgan in a room upstairs that, if we passed those regulations, we would be absolutely snowed under with court cases and no one would be producing programmes—they would be answering accusations in court that they had transgressed the rules. But none of that has happened. The level of penalties has been raised by the ITC which bite occasionally. In fact, they bit rather hard on Granada in the autumn when the company was fined £600,000. I know that that seems a great deal of money to us, but it is not very much in the television world.
I turn now to the complaints which are listed in the well-laid out complaints bulletin which I read every month. I have one criticism to make. The bulletin has been well summarised but those concerned invariably say, even when awful things have happened which have been described and objected to by complainants, that it is not "upheld". But, who ticks off whom? Are there any transgressions? One complaint in 10 is upheld, but we are never told what happens as a result. I am afraid that too often it is not a case of the first X1 at the BBC, nor the second X1, but the young third X1 who deal with these things. They do not have much idea of what is contained in the producers' guidelines. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said about the guidelines; namely, that they are extremely well worded. Every time I read the guidelines I admire the wording. I only wish that the relevant staff read those guidelines, signed a document stating they intended to observe them, and then put them into practice. However, that has never been done. I must confess that I would prefer the guidance to be made compulsory rather than remain voluntary. Then we might get somewhere.
The ITC has a code of conduct. It may be imperfect. I can recall occasions when the most awful material was broadcast. But that also happens with the BBC. Sometimes complaints are not upheld. I recall the famous programme about the last temptation of Jesus. It was considered not to be a religious programme as it did not fulfil the criteria established for religious programmes. Some 8,000 people wrote to complain about the programme. That shows a considerable strength of feeling on the part of the public. Nevertheless, their complaints were not upheld. There have been misdirections under the ITC. The matter should be considered.
The department has attempted to comfort us by stating that the BBC governors can look after their own internal administration and can supervise senior personnel, producers, editors and all other members of staff in the organisation. There are still 20,000 people in the organisation although it has cut its staff by nearly 5,000. I am not convinced that the organisation can

513
supervise all those members of staff and also seek to represent the public and make sure that it is in touch with the public. I am talking about supervising staff, maintaining programme standards and keeping in touch with the public. Surely it is wise therefore to have a second string to our bow. I believe that the BSC should have the capability not only to assess programmes but also to ensure that penalties are imposed for inappropriate material.
The whole picture is changing in this area; the technology is developing rapidly. If we leave the matter for 10 years, people may consider that we have misjudged the position, and the morality of our country may suffer as a result. After all, the BBC—God bless it—is fairly keen on attacking the centres of our organisation and the Government. Too often the police have been condemned for over-reacting and the Royal Family's behaviour has been criticised. Various other organisations which have evolved over centuries and which constitute the key to the morality of our country have been criticised.
After our previous discussion at Report stage, I returned home and watched a film on BBC 1 which started at 10.30 in the evening. In the film a young girl of 15 entered a pub and was then gang raped by three men. It was an American film. I have no idea why it was bought. Why do we buy that sort of programme rather than support our own film industry? Why do we spend money importing programmes which show a lack of taste, decency and morality and broadcast them into homes in this country? The programme started at 10.30 in the evening and finished at midnight. I do not take seriously the argument that it is all right to show programmes depicting certain material after a certain time at night. I have 14 grandchildren. I know that they can operate the television and record programmes. Some people suggest that one should not complain about the subject matter of programmes broadcast after nine o'clock at night as children will not see them because they are in bed. The people who say that obviously do not have grandchildren. They are up all sorts of hours and they can record these programmes so I would not take too lightly the excuse that it is all right.
I was rather encouraged on the 18th December last when the Secretary of State for National Heritage was answering questions first on the Order Paper in the Commons. She said:
"I am determined that the BSC' s work will be strengthened. There will be a requirement to keep a note of the steps that programme makers take as a result of complaints that have been upheld".
Well, it is all right to analyse that and be glad we are going to do all that but then surely there must be some bite somewhere. Somebody should be named, if necessary on the television.
In anticipation that the Government would come under pressures from their staff and the BBC, I tabled an amendment to give the Minister the power—not laying down—to set up a broadcasting ombudsman. I am hopeful that we can strengthen the powers of the BSC, which is our first desire, and not allow the corporation to continue to act as judge and jury in its own case. I know the critics will say that the ombudsman process is slow. It is true that complicated cases may last a year.
514
But there are 18 ombudsmen already. We have a regulatory authority over almost every facet of our organisation: the banks and goodness knows what else.
On top of those, we have 47 consumer protection quangos, making a total of 58. Surely one more can be a saving—a long stop in cricket jargon. The Government are the wicket keepers.
If we do not strengthen the BSC he or his successor might need to take up the option of appointing a broadcasting ombudsman. We would be following the example of many other countries, particularly Scandinavia. We may gain by having that facility up our sleeve and therefore force the governors to be even firmer in their reactions.
I therefore support my noble friend in his amendments and hope he will decide whether we are going to vote on them tonight or leave it until Third Reading. This is the last chance that I can see anywhere for at least 10 years, well into the next century, so surely we ought to take this opportunity, or the Third Reading opportunity, to vote on this issue.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I do not normally speak on broadcasting matters because of my position as the Vice-Chairman of the BBC but this is an important matter. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that he had never heard a case put against what he was saying, so I hope my limping efforts will perhaps go some way towards redressing the balance. The Government in their recent White Paper on the BBC recognised that throughout the world its diversity, its programme independence and its accuracy are bywords.
The governors look after the public interest. I never engage in hypothetical discussions about the public interest, but I know the public interest when I see it. Protecting the reputation of the BBC for truth and impartiality to me is a sacred trust. Those of us who were alive during the war know the contribution the BBC made to morale and the war effort and how people in occupied Europe actually risked their lives to listen to the BBC. Even today when parliamentarians travel abroad they hear everywhere of the excellence and reputation of the BBC.
There has been a lot of talk recently about quangos—even tonight it has crept into the discussions—and how unrepresentative and unaccountable they are. But many of the people who say this have fallen into the oldest and easiest political trap of starting to believe their own propaganda. The stereotyped nonsense which is talked about quangos and their personnel bears no resemblance to the governors that I know and work with at the BBC. What sort of people do they really think we are if we are going to crumple under pressure and allow people to bully the finest public broadcasting service in the world? The governors of the BBC are determined that our programmes are fair and accurate and our programme makers behave impartially.
Many years ago I used to train a junior rugby team and I had to referee the home fixtures, if your Lordships can imagine such a thing. My poor boys had to work very much harder to score points than the visitors because I was so keen, so insistent on showing that I was impartial. I probably went too far the other way.

515
The governors accept the challenge of the Annan Report that they should be seen to govern. As chairman, Marmaduke Hussey has given very effective leadership to the BBC. Nobody can fairly accuse Mr. Hussey of giving the management an easy ride. In An Accountable BBC we set out a clearly defined role for the governors as regulators in the public interest. The governors have established a Programme Complaints Unit, independent of the programme makers, to investigate and rule on serious complaints. The Head of Programme Complaints' findings are appealable to the governors.
The new agreement, which has only recently been considered by both Houses of Parliament, incorporates the clause in the Broadcasting Act 1990 relating to impartiality. An impartiality and accuracy code is being drawn up and will be enforced by the governors.
As your Lordships know, Sir Christopher Bland has been appointed chairman in succession to Marmaduke Hussey. Sir Christopher has wide experience, including a term as vice-chairman of the former IBA, so he is an experienced regulator. Yet before Sir Christopher had even taken up his appointment, before the new charter and agreement had come into effect and before the impartiality code has been published it is suggested that all those arrangements are swept aside and a second regulator is asked to second guess the governors.
Having two regulators is not doubly effective. It is a recipe for confusion and ineffectiveness. An example of that dichotomy is that recently the governors judged a "One o'clock News" report about a horrific massacre in Burundi to be unsuitable for broadcast before the watershed. Yet the Broadcasting Standards Council later ruled that the report was quite acceptable.
Attempts to mould public opinion are now legion. Your Lordships will know that only recently desperate efforts have been made to identify a common interest between Rupert Murdoch's financial empire and the interests of the ordinary viewing public.
We hear a great deal about broadcasters' inability to maintain political impartiality. However, that tells us less about the broadcasters' failings than about the increasingly desperate tactics of the parties to intimidate news editors into favouring their political cause. It is for the governors to distinguish between alleged complaints of that kind—the vast majority—and legitimate concerns. I hardly think that we can expect an inexperienced body such as the Broadcasting Standards Commission to make those distinctions, particularly in the frenetic atmosphere of the forthcoming general election.
It is common knowledge that party political staff are becoming more and more professional, so much so that they are now referred to as spin doctors. Often aggressive, sometimes abusive, one of the main weapons in their armoury is to allege political bias. Perhaps I may briefly weary the House with my experience as Chief Whip in the other place, not only dealing with complaints from colleagues about broadcasts but also running a simple programme monitoring scheme throughout the country. All that time virtually no bias was ever detected, either in the BBC
516
or the commercial channels, and every assistance was given by the broadcasters in investigations. The spin doctors are now so active, not only in attempts to manipulate the presentation of news items, but also in what seems to be intentional time wasting with protracted phone calls at inopportune times, that the BBC has had to recognise the extent of their activities.
We have to strike a balance between getting information and being manipulated. BBC programme editors have been instructed to assert their right to edit, and to put the phone down on the spin doctors if necessary. The Managing Director of News and Current Affairs has had to establish a weekly review of the state of attempts to influence BBC coverage.
Party advisers have had to be banned from the BBC news room at Millbank. It is now standard procedure in the BBC to run through all telephone calls, faxes and letters to see what is fair in the way of complaints and what is unfair, and where there are lessons to be learnt producers and staff are informed. As your Lordships may know, a great deal was learned from the "Brent Spar" episode, which was the first great exposé of pressure group activity.
Complaints have to be considered for patterns and signs of orchestration, because it has to be faced that while many complaints are genuine some are made deliberately in order to try to manipulate or are made with malice. To show a cloven hoof for a moment, I have already confessed to the House on a previous occasion that when I was Chief Whip in another place I would occasionally sit colleagues down with instructions to make repeated telephone calls to telephone poll numbers in order to distort the results. Lest I fall foul of the leadership, I hasten to add that this was very much Old Labour.
Under this Bill and in the new Charter and Agreement, the BBC is being asked to play a key role in the future of British broadcasting: setting programme standards for a growing and changing industry; taking a leading role in the development of digital terrestrial television; becoming a leading world broadcaster in television as well as radio; and developing commercial services. The governors of the BBC, like the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, have a great responsibility to ensure that British broadcasting develops to the highest standards of impartiality, taste, decency and fair trading.
You have asked the governors to undertake a difficult task and you have given us a Charter, Agreement and Impartiality Code which give us the powers to ensure compliance. Please do not trip us up before we have even started to do the job that you have asked us to do.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having known the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, for many years in both Houses of Parliament, perhaps I may say that I have always respected him, and tonight I agreed with a great deal of what he said, but not with all of it.
I agree with him that the BBC is excellent in its news and sports programmes, those programmes dealing with the environment, and its World Service. It has great

517
qualities. I would say that about 85 per cent. of what the BBC does is splendid but it spoils its record by allowing things to happen, especially on so-called entertainment programmes, which, I hope on reflection, the noble Lord the vice-chairman of the governors would feel should be put right.
As my noble friend Lord On-Ewing pointed out, there is a serious situation with which, I suggest, we must deal in the Bill—and deal with it effectively. The most serious part is the continuing amount of violence and sex on television, not only after the magic hour of 9 o'clock but sometimes before it. As my noble friend pointed out, one has only to study the Broadcasting Standards Commission's present complaints bulletins, where they virtually have no power over the BBC, to realise that this matter is causing concern among the public. It causes concern especially among those families with young children and among all concerned with crime. In various capacities I had a good deal of experience of what happens in our criminal courts. There is no need for those events to be repeated on television.
The present system has failed to deal with the issue. The Independent Television Commission, the standards commission and the complaints commission do not have power to deal with the BBC on this matter. However, according to the noble Lord and to the Government, as well as being responsible for the BBC the governors are regulators of its programmes. I believe that that is a misconception. They are not regulators in law. There is no statute which refers to them as regulators. The BBC Charter does not refer to them as regulators; neither does the Agreement with the Government. Until now, if they are assumed to be regulators in fact, I say with respect to the vice-chairman and the remainder of governors, they have not succeeded in performing their function. That is why there is so much violence and sex on TV.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has produced an argument, with simple amendments, which I suggest is unanswerable. I shall be interested yet again to hear what my noble friend Lord Inglewood has to say in answer to it. I am rather anxious to have the attention of my noble friend on this matter. My noble friend Lord Chalfont produced an unanswerable case for giving the new British Standards Commission power to deal with this matter in a way that would cause the BBC to bring its entertainment programmes to the high standard that the rest of its programmes generally meet.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I want to show part of the foundation on which this great edifice is to be built. I happen to have been the chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission for the past four years. I say humbly that at times in this debate, apart from the noble Baroness, I have felt that many noble Lords do not realise what actually happens on these bodies. Perhaps I may briefly tell the House something of what they do.
The commission is a quasi-judicial body fulfilling an ombudsman type role. That is, it is to provide moderate redress—I accept that its sanctions are limited—to people with legitimate grievances with regard to unfairness and infringement of privacy.
518
I point out that the area, the group, the constituency, is limited, because complainants have to have a direct interest in the programme concerned. They must either have appeared in it or it must have been about them. The courts, in a famous judicial review, have limited the right of so-called pressure groups to claim redress from the commission. The investigation takes an enormous amount of time, because the complaints are deeply felt. Last week, and a fortnight ago, there was a hearing that lasted seven hours. The complaints may seem piffling or eccentric at times. But I assure the House they are deeply felt, and justice has to be done—justice subject to the courts.
My Broadcasting Complaints Commission will be one part of the new body. I shall not enter into the ideology of the plans put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. I have a certain sympathy; I see the problems that my noble friends face. But I have to say that the combination of my body with the Broadcasting Standards Council would produce a body totally and absolutely incapable as it stands at the moment of doing what is required by these amendments.
The second amendment, which abolishes direct interest, would mean, if we extended impartiality, that it is highly likely that after the "Today" programme, particularly in the months preceding an election, we should have about 1,000 people ringing us. We should need the wisdom of the Almighty in providing a solution to the problems that would come before us. I claim a certain sacramental grace, but I doubt if I should have that! Imagine "The World at One" on Ireland. The whole of Ulster would ring us.
At the moment my organisation has a staff of seven, and I believe the combined body would have a staff of 25. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said that the Radio Authority managed on a staff of 30. I point out that it passes on all its complaints on unfairness and privacy to us, which we deal with very well.
If we are considering what is proposed by the noble Lord, he cannot merely be attached to the combination of these bodies. We are talking about another animal, something different. It may be that we need something different. We may need a national broadcasting commission. But I assure the House that the ideals would not be achieved by simply sticking it on to this combined body. It does not have the resources, or the skill—nor is it the right body to do what is needed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he will allow me to intervene. He realises—does he not?—that the ITC has those very powers in relation to independent television companies which are licensed. Therefore why should not the same powers be used in relation to the British Broadcasting Corporation?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I cannot speak with great authority about the Independent Television Commission. The noble Lord opposite could say more. All I can say is that it has used its powers very sparingly. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, would say that it has not used them as effectively as he would

519
like. But we are assuming powers to be used effectively. I also point out that the ITC is much more heavily resourced than we are.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I was much moved by the powerful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, but I am in a difficulty because nevertheless I feel very strongly that I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, particularly on the question of direct interest. Incidentally, before I go further, I should say that, as a former governor of the BBC who served under "Duke" Hussey, I have the greatest admiration for him and, I hope, some understanding of the difficult problems of governors.
Reverting to the question of direct interest, I am very much concerned not about current events but about the presentation of history and misrepresentation in the presentation of history. I find it difficult to contemplate that if we had, say, a totally biased programme on Churchill, only Churchill returning from the grave would be empowered to protest about it. That does not seem to me to be reasonable. I am very concerned that something should be done—I do not know what or how—that will enable people to complain about such things and have their interests listened to properly.
The BBC itself in its Charter provides for the treatment of controversial subjects with accuracy and impartiality. Misrepresentation and bias in the presentation of history do not square with that. Somehow, something has to be done to enable that situation to be corrected.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should declare an interest as I am deputy chairman of the Broadcasting Standards Council. Therefore, I followed the debate this evening with particular interest. It would be quite improper for me to speak for the Broadcasting Standards Council. I can simply give my personal views on some of the issues that have been raised so far. I followed with interest and a great deal of sympathy the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. Perhaps I may apply to the question of dealing with matters of political controversy the kind of experience that I have had on the Broadcasting Standards Council. I hope it will be helpful.
Let me make one point first. Suppose the amendments were agreed and suppose that there was an argument as to whether there had been unfairness towards the Conservative Party or the Labour Party in the "Today" programme or "On the Record" or whatever. Would your Lordships trust me personally to be one of the members of that body which ought to examine whether the Conservative Party or the Labour Party have been fairly treated? I do not think that I would be qualified to do that. Frankly, I do not know where one would find people who would be qualified to do that on a body of that kind.
There is certainly another argument. Noble Lords talked about standards of taste and decency, excessive violence and the portrayal of sex on television. It is that which takes up a great deal of time—almost all the time—on the Broadcasting Standards Council.
520
If suddenly we were faced with a hot political issue where there was a bitter argument between one of the political parties and a broadcaster, I suggest that all our work would virtually come to a halt. The sheer pressure of a political party in the run-up to an election campaign would exert such an important influence on the Broadcasting Standards Commission (the new body) that that body could not deal with questions of sex or violence on television or the many complaints that it would receive from ordinary viewers.
So if one simply says that it is important to have a body which looks at taste and decency on television, the work of that body would be negated by throwing upon it the responsibility of dealing with political parties. I believe that it is neither practical nor sensible to impose those particular duties on a body which has not been designed for that purpose and which is very busy doing those other things that your Lordships say are so important that they need to come under scrutiny. I urge your Lordships not to throw such a new responsibility on the Broadcasting Standards Commission.
Let me say a few brief words about direct interest. I do not want to follow the argument about whether an historical figure has been well presented or not. Frankly, I do not see how one could find a body of people who could make a judgment. It would require Oxbridge historians to look into such matters. I do not see how people like me can possibly be qualified—I may have prejudices about Churchill, for or against him—to go into the historical balance of whether or not a programme had been portrayed properly.
One can put the issue into a more contemporary context. Suppose a body of that sort had to deal with the question of Nigeria and the Shell oil company; it is a mind boggling thought as to whether we should give a bunch of 15 people the responsibility for adjudicating on the way in which a specific television programme had been fair or unfair to the Shell oil company in its work in Nigeria. It is a daunting task to put before a body of that sort and would not work happily.
On a further aspect of direct interest, perhaps I can give, from personal experience of the Broadcasting Standards Council, an answer to the question as to why the Broadcasting Standards Council deals with complaints from people who may not have viewed the programme. We do not normally do that, but one obvious example will win support. A mother or father may complain that a programme shown early in the evening is unsuitable for children to watch. The child has been sent out of the room or off to bed so as not to be able to watch the programme. Sensibly, the parents will complain and say that it is not a proper programme to be shown at a time when children can be expected to watch without parental supervision or before the watershed. That is an example of where it is proper for the Broadcasting Standards Council to listen to a complaint made on behalf of somebody else. The mother or father may not have been offended, but they are concerned about the effect the programme could have on a young child. It is a reasonable proposition and we act accordingly.

521
It is also difficult for the Broadcasting Standards Council to be sure, when an adult writes a letter of complaint, that the adult actually saw the programme. The adult will say that there was a programme, quote the time and say that there was too much violence or bad language, or whatever. It is difficult for us to vet whether or not that individual actually saw the programme itself.
That is different from the situation of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said, deals with individuals whose privacy has been breached or about whom an unfair programme has been made. By dealing with people who have a complaint to make, one can obtain evidence from them and weigh up the extent to which that complaint about breaches of privacy or unfairness is valid. That is a different process and an easy to understand process compared with looking at whether or not a historical figure or a historical event has been portrayed fairly or properly.
Therefore, whereas I understand the feeling or the mood which wants a body independent of the broadcasters—the new Broadcasting Standards Commission will be just that; it will have no interest in industry and be totally independent of it, as are the two component bodies of the BCC and BSC—we should not ask that new body to take on those responsibilities. It would simply not be appropriate for it to do so.
9.45 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I was concerned when I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and that of my noble friend Lord Pilkington. They seem to suggest that the two bodies—the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission—are not suitable to take on the duties of the amendment. That is not a very good argument. Parliament should decide the law and those bodies should be made to carry it out. That is their purpose. At the moment, it seems to me that the cart is driving the horse.
The important point is that we are putting together two different bodies; one is concerned with complaints and the other with standards. They perform two very different functions. There is bound to be a certain tension when those two bodies are put together. The arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, have some merit. However, I am concerned about the word "political" in his amendment, and I have various other worries. But we have an opportunity to get this right, and we must get it right. I have not heard the right answer tonight. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider what has been said this evening, because there are certainly anxieties which can be addressed.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not feel wholly confident in rising to speak partly because, during the previous discussion, I was never quite sure with which amendments we were dealing and partly because I am aware of the conflict between my liberal instincts and the feeling, having listened to the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont, Lord Renton and Lord Orr-Ewing, that they had some valid points.
522
On the political side I support what was said about the difficulties by my noble friend Lord Dubs. We on this side of the House are worried ahead of a general election about temptations to intimidate the BBC and to make it a political football on impartiality. We would support the Minister in resisting any attempts to do that.
Having said that, I still have sympathy with one or two points made on the other side of the House. I am worried by the BBC being judge and jury, as I said on Second Reading when discussing the BBC Charter. I note what my noble friend Lord Cocks said, but I believe that there are problems if the regulators are confused with the managers. Nothing has been done on the BBC Charter despite our long and interesting debate. It should be obvious to the House that I am a great supporter of the BBC and of public service broadcasting, but I do not believe that the present situation regarding accountability is perfect.
An interesting letter from the Secretary of State was read out saying that the BSC is not a regulatory body. If it is not, I am puzzled as to what it is and whether there is any point in spending all this money. We believe that it is a regulatory body. I have always sympathised—this is not necessarily my party's position—with the idea of having a single regulatory body because, as the broadcasting media merge and as the BBC gets, as it will, pay television and so on in the digital age, there is a case for a single overarching body. That is my personal view. I accept all of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, and also the nods of my noble friends, with their experience, about the present bodies not being set up to do what we require. But does that mean that no one should do it? As usual, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, put his hammer on the nail, arguing that it is for us to say what they should do if they say they cannot do it now.
On the fairness and impartiality side, I sympathise with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, about complaints at the moment being made only by the people directly affected. That is quite unsatisfactory. I just do not understand it. That distinction as to who is affected in terms of the accountability of our broadcasting to the public is not adequate. I do not wish to get involved in the argument today about guidelines and codes. Anyone who has ever studied Marxist history will know that there are words where one cannot see the difference but one knows that it makes the difference between Stalin murdering people or bringing heaven on earth. However, I still do not see why we do not have codes. I just put it like that. It would certainly meet some of the concerns expressed.
The underlying problem is trust, and trust of journalists. There is a conflict between the managers and the regulators, whether they are judge and jury, the governors or some commission. In my experience the governors of the BBC agree with our concerns and understand them. The conflict is not between one kind and another or between them and us; it is between them and the modern, new model journalists. I speak as a former journalist. From my observation, not always but often, they have no concept of factuality, fairness or impartiality. That is the basic problem.

523
We are dealing with how we solve the problem, whether through codes or whatever. Somehow we have to strengthen the regulators—whether they are governors or old or new model broadcasting commissions of whatever name—to defend our standards. That is a very difficult problem and I sympathise with the Government. Perhaps the Government's proposals will achieve what is required by taking on board a number of very genuine people who are not totally convinced but who want the Government to get it right. I hope so.
I thought that the question of the ombudsman would arise much later; I am very relieved that it has come up now. It seems to me not a bad idea, if I may say that as an off the cuff—
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to point out that there is a misprint on the Marshalled List. It is meant to be the BBC and not the BSC with which the ombudsman is concerned.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Having watched him over the past 50 years, I instinctively assumed that it was a misprint, so we were not misled. I conclude by saying that if the Government can find some way ahead of Third Reading of meeting these genuine concerns without abandoning the basic liberal principles that one cannot put journalists totally into a harness it would be extremely helpful.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have had an interesting and varied debate following the moving of Amendment No. 190 by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. As he said, the remainder of the amendments to which he spoke are really consequential. Given the lateness of the hour, I shall focus on what I believe, from listening to the helpful and clear remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to be the central issue he would like us to consider. It is—I hope I am being fair—that the governors of the BBC are insufficiently independent effectively to perform a regulatory function. The Government proposed in the White Paper, then in the draft Charter and Agreement, and Parliament concurred—albeit with some Members disagreeing—that the BBC should continue to be established along its traditional lines under Charter and Agreement. It follows that arrangements for the BBC cannot be exactly the same as those for independent broadcasters. They can, however, be equivalent. That is how we approached the new Charter and Agreement which are different in a number of important respects from the present ones.
The new Charter and Agreement set out how the BBC is to apply its obligations to observe impartiality in exactly the same terms as apply in the 1990 Act to the ITC, the Radio Authority and the Welsh Authority. Further, the governors are given a clear legal responsibility to ensure compliance with the impartiality code by all the BBC's employees and programme makers. All this is spelt out in the new Charter and Agreement which defines clear responsibilities for the governors.
524
Against such a background, it is obvious that sanctions cannot be exactly the same for the BBC as for the ITC. However, I believe that the sanctions available to the governors are sufficient for them to be able to meet their obligations. The governors may take disciplinary action against its employees, including severe reprimands, and ultimately dismissal if appropriate; they may issue new guidance to producers in the event of any failure to observe either the guidelines or the BBC's obligations under the Charter or Agreement; and they may terminate their relationship with presenters or freelance producers who have seriously breached the guidelines. The ITC cannot sack a broadcaster's chief executive as the BBC governors can. Those are all sanction which the governors have, I understand, applied in the past.
So we do not believe that the governors are inherently too close to the work of the BBC effectively to perform a regulatory role. They have established a programme complaints unit independent of their programme makers and with a route of appeal to the governors. They have already demonstrated a willingness to take strong action where it is required, and the new Charter and Agreement will, as I have explained, clarify their regulatory role and strengthen their authority to act.
We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, for his contribution. As a governor in the front line in dealing with complaints, he has explained how the board of governors will implement the new provisions of the Charter and Agreement as they relate to the governors' regulatory functions.
The noble Lord made the important point, to which I shall return, that the new Charter and Agreement have not yet come into effect. I am sure that what he said must offer reassurance to the House on this aspect of the governors' functions.
I would stress that these are real legal obligations placed on the governors. They are equivalent to those set out in the 1990 Act and placed on the ITC and the Radio Authority. If anyone felt that the governors, or indeed any other regulatory body, were failing to fulfil their obligations, it would be open to them to seek leave for judicial review.
In considering the role of those with regulatory responsibility, it is important to make a distinction between their ability to do the work and their proper performance of this duty. We believe that those charged with regulatory responsibility are properly capable of doing it, and that the ITC and the BBC governors, strengthened in substance and in resolve by the new Charter and Agreement, will have no difficulty in carrying out those tasks and applying sanctions as appropriate.
I turn briefly to the new BSC. It has been suggested that that body should be a regulator. As I have explained earlier this evening and on other occasions in your Lordships' House, the new BSC has a role which is a combination of the roles of its two component bodies. It has two functions. The first is as a standard-setting, bench-marking body in respect of the standards which pertain to broadcasting. The second, as I have already explained, is to have what I term in shorthand a

525
"user-friendly mechanism" so that individuals can seek redress in respect of particular personal damage which they may have experienced from broadcasters. It is not a regulatory body. It is a complement to the regulatory bodies and it is not antagonistic towards them.
Reference has also been made to the remarks made by the Secretary of State and to her wish to strengthen that body. The Bill as submitted to Parliament contains a number of changes to the existing arrangements, perhaps the most significant of which comes in Clause 84(7)(c) which refers to the obligation newly placed on broadcasters to report to the BSC the actions taken by them in response to the BSC's findings, which in turn will be published in the bulletin. This very evening, for example, a number of changes have been introduced in respect of the BSC which have received general support around the House. We are strengthening the BSC both in form and by backing it by giving it increased political authority. It is not an unusual phenomenon in this country that much of the standing and effect which a body such as the BSC can exercise derives from the authority inherently within it.
Another point on which I should like your Lordships to focus is the consequence of the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has brought forward for the BSC. As I understand it, he is suggesting that the BSC should become a kind of parallel regulator. In particular what would be the relationship of the new BSC with the ITC were his proposals to become law? How will the two relate in respect of, for example, an adjudication on the same complaint? That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. We shall find that the decisions of one body will be impugned by the decisions made by the other. We have here a recipe for regulatory anarchy, which is in no one's interests.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for so courteously giving way. I am sure he knows that that is the position at the moment: the BCC and the BSC are in a position to second-guess, to make a different adjudication on the same complaint from that of the two regulatory bodies. It exists at the moment. There is second-guessing, as the cliché has it, in existence now. What is new?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I understand the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on occasions it can undoubtedly be an unsatisfactory state of affairs for the regulator if the regulator's decision is attacked via the mechanism of judicial review under the circumstances he described. That has occurred. That will be compounded in two regards. First, the scope of the new BSC will be widened, thereby increasing this problem; and, secondly, as I understand it, the aspiration is that the BSC will itself become some kind of regulatory body in respect of the broadcasters. If I have misunderstood him, I crave his forgiveness. But we cannot have two regulators in respect of one broadcaster.
I should like, if I may, to move on. As I said, as I understand it, and as I am sure the House understands it, the noble Lord's case is that the BBC governors have not properly carried out their regulatory job. As I have
526
explained, substantial changes have been made to the BBC Charter and Agreement in response to the kind of points that the noble Lord and his friends have raised.
I appreciate that the noble Lord disagrees with the conclusions that the Government and Parliament have so recently reached, but against that background he must explain, by reference to the arrangements in the new Charter and Agreement, why those substantial changes will fail. Much of the evidence that has been brought forward this evening is old. Indeed, it is inevitable. As I have explained on this and other occasions, we accept that in the past things have not gone right, but we have taken steps. We believe that those steps will help put matters right. The Secretary of State, the new Chairman of the BBC and the Government are all emphatic that those abuses of the past shall not continue.
The tools have been given to the chairman and governors to do that in the new Charter and Agreement which, I believe, will come into effect on 1st May this year. If I understand him correctly, the noble Lord says that he doubts their ability to deliver, which of course is a perfectly fair point to make. He points to past events to support that view, but we have made significant changes to deal with t1te deficiencies of the past. If the noble Lord can convince me that the new arrangements will fail, he makes the case for doing something beyond that which we have done already; but, equally, if he does not, surely he makes my case for me.
I apologise for making a rather lengthy speech at this late hour, but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that these are important issues which deserve close consideration. I hope that I have explained the Government's position as clearly as possible.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I suppose that I should follow the Minister in apologising for speaking again at this late hour. I shall not, however, do so because it is not by my choice that the debate is taking place at this time. I therefore beg the indulgence of the House to make one or two points on what has been a most interesting and to me enlightening exchange. I thank everyone who has spoken, not just those who spoke in support of my amendment but those who have shown a certain amount of doubt about it.
I shall make just one or two brief comments. The point has come up again and again—the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, made it first, but it has constantly come up—and it came up again in the Minister's remarks a moment ago: there seems to be—I am repeating myself, but it seems necessary to do so—that there already exists a situation in which two regulatory bodies (the ITC and the Radio Authority) have over them two other regulatory bodies (the BCC and the BSC). The Minister may say that those are not regulatory bodies, in which case I repeat my rhetorical question: what on earth are they? We ought to have it clear that, when people say that the new BSC would be a second-guessing organisation over and above the existing regulatory authorities, such an institution exists already but not in respect of the BBC. The BBC is the only body that it cannot second-guess and I have been trying in part to put that right.

527
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, brought out the floodgates argument again, saying that if we did this at election time there would be thousands of frivolous complaints. That has not happened in the past so why should it happen in the future? I do not understand that argument.
There are many other issues that I should like to mention but it is late at night. However, I wish to make a point in reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. He said that he had some doubts about the word "political" appearing in my amendment. My amendment is a direct quotation from the Broadcasting Act 1990, which lays that duty upon the ITC and the Radio Authority. Therefore, why not upon the BSC?
It has been a most interesting and enlightening experience to listen to some of the arguments that have been put forward. I return to what the Minister said. At the beginning of his remarks he said something which appeared to me to go right to the heart of the matter. He said that the Charter means that the governors may do this, may do that and may require this. "May" is the key word. It places no obligation, duty or responsibility, legal or otherwise, upon the governors. It simply means that they may do it. What if they do not choose to do so? That is at the heart of my question.
The Minister spoke about the powers of the ITC and the Radio Authority not being as draconian as those of the governors under the Charter. Perhaps I may remind him that the ITC and the Radio Authority may not be able to sack the chief executive of a radio station but they can close down a station. That is somewhat more drastic than sacking the chief executive.
I was most interested to hear the Minister mention judicial review. It has clarified in my mind an issue that has been puzzling me for some time. I wondered whether the BBC could be taken to judicial review by viewers or listeners, as in the case of the independent authorities, which are subject to statute law and not to a Charter. I was interested to hear him say that that is the case. I suspect that tonight a number of people will be thinking very hard about the exciting possibilities of taking the BBC to judicial review.
I return to a comment that I made in my original remarks. I asked the Government to appreciate that there is a very real problem. It is not an imagined problem nor is it the figment of one person's fevered imagination. It exists and it is shared by a great number of people. I am sorry that the Government apparently do not entirely share that view. I wish they would. I hope that between now and Third Reading they will think of a better way of solving the problem if they do not like my way. This problem will not go away, whether there is judicial review or further legislation. I hope that between now and Third Reading the Government will come forward with a proposal that they believe to be practicable and will meet the anxieties of a great number of people; people who, as the Minister said tonight, are not of the same political persuasion. It is an anxiety that pervades the entire political spectrum and is widespread throughout the country.
528
I have a hope, perhaps not a strongly held hope but a faint hope, that the Government will come back with a suggestion as to how to solve the problem. I state my possible intention of returning to the matter on Third Reading if nothing happens. In the meantime, it may be, from what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said, that I need to remind the House that at the moment we are discussing one amendment, Amendment No. 190. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 63, line 17, leave out second ("any") and insert ("the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Complaints of unfair treatment etc.]:
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Clause 77 [Committee to consider fairness complaints]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 64, line 23, after second ("to") insert ("the consideration of").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 194:
Page 64, line 25, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Clause 78 [Complaints relating to taste and decency, etc.]:
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
Clause 79 [Supplementary provisions as to making of complaints of either kind]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 65, line 4, leave out ("and") and insert ("or in such other form as the BSC may allow and must").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Clause 81 [Consideration of standards complaints]:
[Amendments Nos. 199 to 201 not moved.]
Clause 84 [Publication of BSC's findings]:
[Amendments Nos. 202 to 204 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 69, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) References in subsection (2) to the publication of any matter are references to the publication of that matter without its being accompanied by any observations made by a person other than the BSC and relating to the complaint.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved in substitution for Amendment No. 206 a manuscript amendment:
Page 69, line 12, leave out ("at such intervals") and insert ("monthly or at such other intervals as they think fit").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 69, line 34, leave out ("absolute") and insert ("qualified").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, due to the lateness of the hour at Committee stage I did not move the amendment but the Minister and I exchanged correspondence on it. However late the hour, I feel that I must move it now.
This is an issue that has been highlighted by a recent court case which, rather than explaining the issue, confused it. I am concerned that under the Bill the BSC would have absolute privilege which would enable it to make possibly libellous statements without risk of being sued. The provision of absolute privilege to the BSC's report would give that body a greater level of protection than that applied to equivalent bodies under the law of defamation.
Traditionally, absolute privilege attaches to Parliament and the courts, those bodies to whom it is afforded by statute, and those bodies which exercise the judicial power of the state. Absolute privilege attaches to fair, accurate and contemporaneous reports of the courts, provided they sit in public, but qualified privilege only attaches to reports of other absolutely privileged bodies. This position is reflected in the Defamation Bill.
The BSC will exercise a complaints function, usually having held a hearing, in private, and not a judicial or state function. Those bodies to which Parliament has afforded absolute privilege usually exercise one or other of those functions; for example, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. If the BSC were to receive absolute privilege as a complaints body which holds hearings and receives evidence it would follow (on the analogy with the courts of justice) that statements of the parties and witnesses would also enjoy absolute privilege, which is surely unintended.
I fully accept that the new body must have teeth and must reasonably protect its members. This is an important issue on which I should be grateful for clarification from my noble friend. I beg to move.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps I may express my support for the noble Viscount's amendment. I endorse the points that he made. I should also say that I object to absolute privilege in the Houses of Parliament; indeed, I should like that to be abolished too because it is abused. Should there ever be any scandals in another place or on Select Committees, I believe that the privilege would be abused. Absolute privilege is a very dangerous licence. It is possible only in a world where there are gentlemen, and we now know that the world is very short of them. I wholly support the views put forward by the noble Viscount. I believe that qualified privilege is quite enough.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, both the Government and the Minister ought to be aware that these Benches also support the amendments. We believe that the case was very clearly put by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, Parliament has entrusted members of the commission with a particularly difficult task in the case of fairness complaints. It was our intention to protect those members in the exercise of their functions. As a quasi-judicial body, at least in relation to fairness complaints, we believe that its proceedings and reports of its proceedings would attract absolute privilege in any case.
The purpose of granting the Broadcasting Standards Commission absolute privilege in the clause for reports of its proceedings is to define the matter beyond argument and to ensure that the commission may carry out its duties without fear of false allegations of defamation which could embroil its members in lengthy and costly court proceedings. However, I fully understand the anxieties of noble Lords. On reflection, we now believe that it would be more appropriate to remove the entirety of subsection (10).
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his response. I believe that I am right in saying that, by stating that they will remove subsection (10), the Government believe they have absolute privilege but they are not entirely sure. Therefore, they do not want to say anything and will leave it to the courts to decide. I must admit that I am not a lawyer and that I am quite lost when it comes to such matters. But, in any event, I am grateful for my noble friend's reply. Of course, I shall have to study it because, as I said, I am not an expert on such matters. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 208 to 210 not moved.]
Lord Colwyn Lord Colwyn moved Amendment No. 211:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause—
USE OF MUSICAL WORKS IN BROADCAST SOUND RECORDINGS
(".—(1) Sections 135A to 135G of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (copyright licensing) (as inserted by section 175 of the Broadcasting Act 1990) shall each be amended as follows.
(2) After "recordings", in each place it occurs, insert "or musical works".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we come now to what is probably the final debate of our deliberations this evening. It is a new amendment which relates to a matter not raised in Committee. It is an amendment which I believe my noble friend the Minister will very easily be able to accept as it is very straightforward. I spoke about the matter at length during the passage of the previous broadcasting Bill.
Some noble Lords will know that I am a semi-professional musician and so the broadcasting of music, especially my own, and the rewards that it brings are close to my heart. Apart from that, I have no interest to declare other than the fact that I was a director at the

531
beginning of Jazz FM. I should also like to make it quite clear that I have had no interest in any other part of the Bill.
I am in favour of continual expansion in the a number of radio stations broadcasting music. I also believe that those who compose, perform and record the music which broadcasters use should obtain a fair reward for their work and creativity. Those who make music and those who broadcast share a mutual interest in each other's welfare.
The amendments to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in Section 175 of the Broadcasting Act 1990 have been of benefit to both parties. They introduced the "statutory licence" which has allowed new radio ventures to get to air without being impeded by the collective copyright agency which represents the British recording industry. That has been helpful to new broadcasters. On the other hand, the amendments also clarified the role of the Copyright Tribunal as arbitrator between the record companies' copyright collection agency and the broadcasters, leading to fairness, peace, understanding and proper payment and reward on both sides.
However, under the copyright Act, as amended by Section 175 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, only the copyright collecting agency working on behalf of record manufacturers—that is, Phonographic Performance Limited—is covered. Other important copyright societies also license radio companies to use their members' copyright. The Performing Rights Society represents composers and arrangers, for example.
No major disputes currently exist between the collecting societies and UK commercial radio broadcasters, but the amendment that I propose would ensure the same legal framework for the relationship between all agencies that issue collective copyright licences and the radio broadcasters with whom they negotiate.
Recently the MMC gave its view that a statutory licence with PRS is not necessary because it was not in the society's interests not to issue a licence. I beg to differ. As I see it, the very intention of the amendment to the copyright Act in Section 175 of the Broadcasting Act 1990—to enable broadcasters to begin broadcasting and have copyright disputes dealt with by the arbitration skills of the Copyright Tribunal—would be impaired if there were not a parallel entitlement to a statutory licence in respect of the composers' copyright in the works contained on the gramophone records which are already subject to a statutory licence with PPL.
My amendment is, if you like, insurance for the future to ensure proper reward—arbitrated if necessary—for all involved in the British music industry and a climate of confidence for those who wish to broadcast and increase the popularity of the music industry's wares. This is an amendment which would allow the Government to do something positive for the music industry; something more effective and productive than an appearance at the Brit Awards. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister was more than helpful in his response to a similar type of amendment to which I spoke on Second Reading. I made one or two suggestions on that occasion. My noble friend made helpful comments as regards a statutory licence. I believe that my noble friend's amendment is sympathetic to that issue. I hope that my noble friend the Minister and his department can offer some help on this matter. I thank him for everything he has done to help us in the past. If he could see his way to assist my noble friend on this occasion, I would be grateful.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I speak briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn. I do so for two simple reasons. First, his amendment seems to me to be entirely logical and sensible and, secondly, anything which protects the interests of composers is welcome. They are a body of people who receive little consideration in the world, except the very famous. They are often left out of consideration in matters such as this Broadcasting Bill. If the Government could see their way to accepting the sensible amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, they would do well to do so.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for having raised this matter. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Colwyn, whose expertise in the music field is renowned. I am also grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lord Lyell and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. In moving this amendment, as the noble Lord explained, he is seeking to extend the statutory licence provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990. One of the reasons for introducing the statutory licence in 1990 was to remove what I understand are known as the needletime constraints which had previously been imposed by the owners of copyright in sound recordings. The needletime constraints had been criticised in 1988 by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Collective Licensing of Public Performance and Broadcasting Rights in Sound Recordings. That meant that licences offered by the copyright owners for the use of sound recordings in broadcasts limited the number of hours of transmissions which could include sound recordings. The MMC report had additionally recommended that a statutory copyright licence in respect of the broadcasting of collectively licensed sound recordings be introduced. Delays in agreeing satisfactory licences were causing difficulties for some of the new broadcasters wishing to start transmissions at that time. The Government were keen to remove these obstacles which had been identified by the MMC and to this end introduced the statutory licence in 1990.
The statutory licence allows broadcasters and cable programme service providers to start transmissions before copyright royalty rates for the inclusion of sound recordings have been agreed. It also removes the possibility of any needletime constraints, so that licences can no longer specify a maximum amount of needletime. I remember that I indicated during the Committee stage of the Bill, when another possible variation to the statutory licence was under consideration, that the Government still support the

533
statutory licence, and I reiterate that support now. The Government are, though, currently considering whether some rather limited restrictions to the availability of the statutory licence may now be justified. Your Lordships may remember that they were then considering what is known as "muzak" and its delivery to supermarkets and that sort of establishment.
However, my noble friend's amendment is different because this seeks to broaden the statutory licence so that it covers musical works as well as sound recordings. It is quite true that broadcasters and cable programme services providers do need to obtain licences from the owners of copyright in any copyright musical works included in transmissions, as well as from the owners of copyright in sound recordings of musical works.
This is not the first time there have been suggestions that the statutory licence should therefore cover musical works as well as sound recordings. I do hope the noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment will not consider me unfair if I say that this is part of what has been an ongoing, long-running story.
The issue has been considered very recently by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which published a report on 1st February this year on performing rights. This report concluded in relation to the extension of the statutory licence provisions to musical works. I can do no better than quote what is said in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report:
"We do not see an overriding case for extending the provisions further".
This conclusion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is one which is fully supported by the Government. As the MMC report makes absolutely clear, the special reasons relating to needletime constraints do not apply to musical works and the body, the Performing Rights Society, which the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, referred to in his remarks, which collectively licences the rights relating to the inclusion of a musical work in a broadcast or cable programme service. It has a commercial imperative to reach an agreement on a licence. The Performing Rights Society informed the MMC inquiry that it had never refused to issue a licence given that to do so would obviously jeopardise its members' revenues.
It is, I suppose, possible that broadcasters and cable programme service providers may feel that they have been obliged to take licences from the Performing Rights Society on terms which they believe are unfavourable. However, copyright law already provides an appropriate remedy, if such is the case, in so far as a licensee or prospective licensee can refer the matter to the Copyright Tribunal for a decision. This seems to go some extent towards the mischief which my noble friend Lord Colwyn is concerned about.
The tribunal is an independent body. It is established under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 specifically to adjudicate on matters such as this. The Government do not believe, therefore, that dissatisfaction with any licence terms offered by the Performing Rights Society provides the justification for a provision which would allow broadcasters to use musical works before the copyright royalties sought by the Performing Rights Society are paid.
534
I appreciate that this will be a disappointing response to my noble friend and the other noble Lords who spoke in support of this amendment. I have to say that it is not one that the Government can support.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the Government have considered the developments that will be taking place over the next few years in the multimedia area? There will be not only conventional recordings of musical works that have been conventionally composed; there will also be a new breed of what one might call computer-generated recordings. The protection given to that is covered by the copyright protection in the computer programme and not in the product of that programme. That was a confusion that arose during the passage of the Copyright and Patents Act. I should like once again to draw to the Government's attention the fact that we need to address this issue. It is an issue that will become more and more important as we go further down the amalgamation of electronic systems.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say that my noble friend Lord Stockton has drawn to the attention of the House what is clearly an important matter. As he will know probably better than the rest of us, developments in the multi-media world are such that the traditional way in which we as legislators and as citizens have looked at a number of these matters will inevitably he changed by these new technological advances.
The point that my noble friend has raised is of considerable significance to the industry and to Britain, bearing in mind our prowess in this field. I hope that your Lordships will agree with me that the appropriate response is that we should reflect carefully on the point that my noble friend Lord Stockton has drawn to my attention.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, when my noble friend began his remarks I felt encouraged and thought that he might accept my amendment. As he continued it became obvious that that would not be the case.
British radio has expanded enormously since the passing of the 1990 Act. The statutory licence has worked well for PPL and for the radio industry. More radio means more revenue for PPL, and record sales have increased correspondingly. It is not clear to me why a similar statutory licence cannot be arranged for PRS. That would similarly benefit the composers and publishers.
However, I shall read my noble friend's long and complicated reply and decide whether I should raise the matter again at a later stage.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, having heard the remarks of my noble friend Lord Colwyn, perhaps the best way forward would be for me to draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, who has principal responsibility for these matters.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I am very grateful for that additional help, and I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 [Power of BBC to make transfer schemes relating to its transmission network]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 74, line 29, leave out from ("services") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is straightforward. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 95 of the Bill empowers the BBC to draw up a scheme to transfer certain property, rights and liabilities in order to facilitate the privatisation of its transmission network. The amendment removes the BBC's research and development work from the scope of any such transfer scheme.
The subsection was an enabling provision modelled on the similar provisions in the Broadcasting Act 1990 in relation to the Independent Broadcasting Authority's transmission services, which were successfully privatised in 1991. However, after further discussion with the BBC, we have concluded that it is unnecessary. We have agreed that the BBC needs to retain its research and development function in order to be a properly informed customer for privatised transmission services and to continue its vital contribution to the development of the BBC's services and to the wider broadcasting equipment industry in this country.
I hope that that explanation will give a clear picture of the reasons for bringing the amendment forward. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, will the Minister tell us as regards the amendment whether the reservation of the research and development work of the BBC from the privatisation of the remainder of the transmission network is paralleled by the arrangements made for the IBA following the 1990 Act? If I remember rightly, the main research and development of the IBA engineering division—it was a notable engineering division comparable to that of the BBC—went with the privatisation arrangements. Are the two arrangements in parallel? If not, why not? When the Minister responds, perhaps he can give me some information on that.
In doing so, perhaps he can say what proportion of the BBC's engineering transmission operations is reflected in the separation of the research and development work from the remainder of the transmission. It seems a somewhat odd proposition.
If I remember rightly, in the 1990 Act the IBA—now the Independent Television Commission—was entitled to retain an essential small corps of engineering experts who could look after the engineering transmission interests of the ITV network and deal on equal professional terms with the separately privatised IBA engineering system. If the position is different for the BBC, why is it different?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is getting late. On the issue of transmitters we are in some difficulties. We oppose it but we cannot discover whether the BBC supports it or opposes it.
536
The ITV's 600 transmitters have been sold to NTL—an excellent small British technological firm. Can NTL also bid for the BBC's transmitters? If it can, is there any danger of a monopoly emerging in that area?
On the research and development facility, the Minister began to deal with the issue, but it is unclear to me what will occur if the transmitters with which it has been concerned have gone. Has he any views on that?
Does it also mean that the privatised transmitters will have no research and development facility? I do not quite understand. One has transmitters in one place and the research people in another. I am not sure of the logic.
Are there guarantees of employment for those people within the BBC now that the central objective of their work has moved elsewhere? Will their terms and conditions of employment be the same after the transmitters have been sold off?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, a number of significant questions have been posed about the process of the sale of the BBC transmitters, in particular what will happen to those employed as research and development staff at the BBC.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, whose knowledge of these matters is of far longer standing than mine and, I suspect, rather deeper in respect of the 1990 Act, referred to the privatisation of the old IBA engineering division at the time that the IBA transmitters were sold. I understand that a significant number of people had positions transferred to the purchaser of the IBA transmitters at that time.
The clause to which we have been speaking was included in the Bill because it was supposed when the Bill was drafted that there might be a number of BBC staff whom one might describe as naturally belonging to the transmission side and who would appropriately be transferred to any possible acquirer of the transmission division of the BBC as and when it was sold. The power is included in order to make quite clear that that could happen if it were appropriate.
The vast bulk of the BBC's research and development deals with matters which I believe are not so inherently tied up with the transmission division that they would transfer with it. I understand that it is likely that few people from the BBC's research and development side would go with the transmitters and that they are to remain with the BBC. It is possible that a few people may leave from choice, but I do not believe we are likely to see any kind of exodus of personnel.
I hope that answers part of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. So far as concerns NTL being a possible purchaser of the transmitters, that is a matter for competition policy. If it is deemed to be in breach of competition policy, clearly that company could not. But there is no precondition implicit in the terms of the Bill to stop it at least putting in a bid.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

537
Schedule 6 [Amendments of Broadcasting Act 1990 relating to services provided by BBC companies]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 112, line 45, at end insert—
("(a) by section 42B(2), in relation to a licence to provide a restricted service,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendment No. 214 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 215 and 216:
Page 115, line 15, after ("including") insert ("a restricted service (as defined by section 42A) or").
Page 115, line 19, leave out ("or (c)",") and insert ("(c) or (d)",").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 217 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 218 to 220A:
Page 116, line 9, at end insert—
(". In section 2 of the 1990 Act (regulation by Commission of provision of television services), in subsection (4), in the definition of "television programme service", after paragraph (a) there is insertedߞ
"(aa) a restricted service (as defined by section 42A);").
[Renumbered as Amendment 220A].
Page 116, line 12, at end insert—
(". In section 46 of the 1990 Act (licensable programme services), in subsection (2)(a), after "television broadcasting service" there is inserted ", a restricted service".
In section 71 of the 1990 Act (interpretation of Part I), after the definition of "regional Channel 3 service" there is inserted—
""restricted service" has the meaning given by section 42A;".
In section 72 of the 1990 Act (local delivery services), in subsection (2) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—
"(aa) any restricted service (within the meaning of that Part);".").
Page 116, line 12, at end insert—
538
(". In Schedule 19 to the 1990 Act (the Gaelic Broadcasting Committee: supplementary provisions)—

(a) in paragraph 8—

(i) for "Gaelic Television Fund" there is substituted "Gaelic Broadcasting Fund"; and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (c), after "Commission" there is inserted "and (where the expenses relate to the Commission's functions in connection with sound programmes) the Radio Authority"; and

(b) in paragraph 11(4)—

(i) after "Commission" there is inserted "or the Radio Authority"; and

(ii) for "them", where it first occurs, there is substituted "the Commission or, as the case may be, the Authority"."). On Question, amendments agreed to.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendments Nos. 221 to 224:
Page 116, line 19, column 3, leave out ("and").
Page 116, line 21, column 3, at end insert—
("and Comataidh Telebhisein Gaidhlig")
Page 116, line 34, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 45 (8) and (9). Section 47 (11) and (12).")
Page 116, line 45, column 3, at end insert—
("Section 45 (8) and (9). Section 47 (11) and (12).")
("In Schedule 19, paragraph 3.")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 101 [Commencement and transitional provisions]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 225:
Page 76, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) section (Renewal of licences to provide national radio services),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Angola
  Angola
  US Arms Sales to Greece and Turkey
  US Arms Sales to Greece and Turkey
  UN Contributions
  UN Contributions
  Dayton Agreement
  Dayton Agreement
  Cairngorms: Proposed Developments
  Cairngorms: Proposed Developments
  Diet and Cancer and Heart Disease
  Diet and Cancer and Heart Disease
  Low Birth Weight and Ill Health
  Low Birth Weight and Ill Health
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  AIDS and HIV
  AIDS and HIV
  Parliamentary Mail: Delivery to Government Departments
  Parliamentary Mail: Delivery to Government Departments
  Legal Aid Board
  Legal Aid Board
  Public Interest Immunity: Consultation
  Public Interest Immunity: Consultation
  Factortame Judgment
  Factortame Judgment
  Fishing Quotas
  Fishing Quotas
  Large Goods Vehicles: Drivers' Eyesight
  Large Goods Vehicles: Drivers' Eyesight
  Citizenship Application Fees
  Citizenship Application Fees
  Prison Ombudsman
  Prison Ombudsman
  Prime Minister's Visit to Far East
  Prime Minister's Visit to Far East