Sitting of 18 December 1997

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The President of the Board of Trade was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Export Market (Competitiveness)
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: What priority her Department attaches to improving the competitiveness of British industry in respect of the export market. [19867]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): We attach high priority to strengthening support for British industry in overseas markets. One of our first actions in government was to set up the export forum in partnership with the private sector. The Department is now giving attention to its detailed recommendations.
    Mr. Thomas: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. Her efforts and those of her Department to promote British industry abroad will be much welcomed by exporters in my constituency. Can she tell us when her Department will act on the export forum's report?
    Mrs. Beckett: One of the first things that we did was to reinstate the trade fairs support scheme, which was widely welcomed by industry, especially exporters. We have now announced the first part of the largest ever programme of trade fairs and missions. That first part alone will support 372 groups at trade fairs, 159 trade missions and 32 overseas seminars. Of course, all my Ministers are involved in supporting the export drive with a programme of visits to overseas markets.
    We are also working to step up the successful programme of export promotions. Last night at Lancaster house I hosted a reception for current and, we hope, prospective export promoters, and we are working to consider the recommendations of the export forum on how we can organise our support for exports even better across Departments.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that a company's ability to deliver speedily high-value goods to its international customers increases its competitiveness in the marketplace? Will she enter into discussions with those who provide air freight services, to advise them that regular competitively priced services would greatly assist British industry with exports?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and am certainly mindful that that is one of the pieces of
    468
    advice that we often received from British business before the election. Part of people's concern was that we should have a proper, soundly working transport infrastructure, so that they could get their goods to market. I certainly bear in mind the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.
    Mr. Redwood: May I wish the right hon. Lady and her Front-Bench team every compliment of the Christmas season and hope that they have a happy and enjoyable Christmas break with their families? Now, given that industry needs fair and firm enforcement of the rules to be able to compete, will she tell us why she has granted an extension to the New Statesman, a Labour publication connected with the Paymaster General, for late filing of accounts? What action does she propose to take on the continued failure to file? Will the United Kingdom tax authorities co-operate with the Belgian tax authorities in the investigation into the affairs connected with the estate of Madame Bourgeois? We need fair and firm enforcement of the rules, whoever may be involved with the businesses.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his Christmas wishes, which I return—although I had a feeling that there would be a "but" following them, as turned out to be the case. The issues that he raises concerning the personal affairs of my hon. Friend the Paymaster General have been extensively discussed in the House.
    Mr. Bercow: The New Statesman?
    Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman raised that as well. The hon. Gentleman should have been listening to his right hon. Friend. The House has dealt with the issues extensively and there is nothing to add.
    As for the New Statesman, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is not a part of my daily duties to consider personally the handling of the accounts of individual companies. I will make inquiries about the matter, but it is not one with which I am familiar.

    High Technology Companies
    Dr. Iddon: What action her Department is taking to encourage financial institutions to invest in high-technology companies. [19868]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Government believe that high-technology, growth firms are one of the keys to building a successful modern economy. The Department of Trade and Industry has frequent contact with financial institutions and their representative bodies to discuss the financing of growth companies and to ensure that Government policies encourage such investment. The DTI is also supporting a number of general and sectoral initiatives that will help emerging growth companies to access appropriate packages of private sector finance.
    Dr. Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and also for the fact that this Government have clearly shown that they are committed to the promotion of high technology. Does my hon. Friend welcome the recent formation of the McCullagh group, which will bring

    469
    high-technology companies much closer together with the financial institutions that have the money to invest in their work?
    Mrs. Roche: Yes, I certainly do. The new Government very much bear in mind the excellent reports produced by the Confederation of British Industry and the Bank of England in that area. I was anxious that we should take quick action, which is why I am delighted to tell the House that we have formed the tech-stars steering group as well, to work alongside the other group, so that we can help that vibrant sector, which has the ability to win for Britain. I am also delighted to be able to say that the first meeting, which I attended, has taken place.
    Mr. Jenkin: How does it encourage financial institutions to invest in high-technology companies if their dividends are taxed by the abolition of tax credits?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman must really think of some better points—[Interruption.] I know that Opposition Members are a little restive to get up for Christmas, but the House still has some serious work to do. What is important is to ensure that we have stability over the long term and a strategy that is geared to long-term investment. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is about and that is why British business has so warmly welcomed all the measures that he has taken.

    Low Pay Commission
    Mr. MacShane: If she will make a statement on the work of the Low Pay Commission, with special reference to Yorkshire. [19870]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The Low Pay Commission is undertaking a series of regional visits and will take evidence from a wide range of organisations and individuals on the national minimum wage. I understand that the commission made a successful visit to Yorkshire on 5 December and took evidence from employers, employee organisations, representatives of the Low Pay Unit and the voluntary sector.
    Mr. MacShane: Now that the shadow President of the Board of Trade has been forced to boot out his deputy, once he was exposed this week as being up to his ears in low-pay, sweatshop employers, can my hon. Friend confirm that in my constituency of Rotherham a survey this week showed that a huge number of employers still pay less than £3 an hour? Those are exactly the sort of exploitative, sweatshop, third-world employers Tory Members support and have direct financial interests in.
    Mr. McCartney: I can confirm that 4,000 families in Rotherham receive family credit because the pay that they receive at the end of the week is not sufficient for them to live on. As for the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who threatened that I would not be in this job too long, I think that he has left his post rather more quickly than I am going to do. Perhaps when the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who has replaced him, comes to the Dispatch Box, he will give us some indications about his farming holdings and how those
    470
    relate to the National Minimum Wage Bill, in particular clauses 43 and 44 and schedule 2, which all deal with the Agricultural Wages Act 1948.
    Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) had responsibility for shadowing energy policy, and that is precisely why he has gone to join the man who decides on energy policy—the Paymaster General—at the Treasury.
    On a more serious note, will the Minister confirm whether every single low-paid or disabled person in Yorkshire will be paid the minimum wage in full?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks was caught out with a vengeance on Tuesday evening, when trying to defend sweatshop labour. On numerous occasions he was given the opportunity to declare an interest to the House and failed to do so. Even worse, he dismissed the points that were made. As a consequence, he has been moved quickly, because he could not deal with matters relating to the National Minimum Wage Bill. I repeat the question: when the hon. Member for Daventry comes to the Dispatch Box, will he please advise the House how he will be able to manage the issues, given the potential conflict of interest?
    The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) knows full well that the Low Pay Commission has responsibility to come up with a starting rate for the national minimum wage. We have made it absolutely clear from the outset that there will be no discrimination against people with disabilities who want to claim the national minimum wage.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Wyatt: What is the role of her Department in assisting British business to prepare for EMU. [19871]
    Mrs. Beckett: My Department has been helping to prepare British business by working closely with the Treasury, both on the committees set up to prepare for economic and monetary union and in helping to produce its booklet, "Practical Information for Business". The Department will also be providing staff for the new euro preparations unit.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend. Businesses in my constituency want to join EMU tomorrow, and if not tomorrow, the day after; but the major concern, especially among small and medium enterprises, is how we can help them to understand better the implications of EMU.
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right: it is a consequence of the previous Government's neglect of the issue that so many people in the business community, and especially in small and medium businesses, have not had the information. The Treasury has produced the "Practical Information for Business" booklet, 50,000 copies of which have already been distributed; that is a clear indication of the interest in the matter. The Bank of England, the Confederation of British Industry and the British chambers of commerce are all working on co-operative programmes to spread the information that business needs.

    471
    My hon. Friend is entirely right to identify the fact that whatever happens in terms of British participation in economic and monetary union, British business will be affected by its introduction.
    Mr. Redwood: In view of previous questions put to us by Ministers, we would be very happy to answer questions for the Department of Trade and Industry in Government time, as that might be more enlightening than some of the answers that we get from them. In the meantime, we are asking the questions.
    Given that a single currency would mean that interest and exchange rates, public borrowing, our overdrafts and savings, and our economic policy would be settled by an offshore bureaucracy rather than by our democracy, what caused the President of the Board of Trade to change her mind from her principled opposition to the European Community and all its works, for which she was famous, to strong support for full economic and monetary union?
    Mr. Skinner: You did the opposite. You are a Johnny-come-lately.
    Mrs. Beckett: I rather share my hon. Friend's view. I recall very recently sitting at dinner next to someone who said that he had been a Euro-sceptic since 1992, to which my response was, "Too late." What changed my mind was 25 years, two referendums and the experience of the British people, who clearly chose, by a democratic decision, to remain in the European Union. In my view it is now the case that all our interests are irrevocably bound up with our membership of that body, and it is absolutely essential for Britain's future to make the best that we can of our membership and to work co-operatively with our European Union partners.
    The classic example of that is economic and monetary union itself. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, as he seemed to imply, that the Conservative party has now decided that it does not want to participate in economic and monetary union at any point, but I can tell him that that would be disastrous for British business and for our economy.
    Dr. Palmer: In view of the welcome interest shown by Opposition Front Benchers in corporate accounts, will my right hon. Friend urge them to publish their own accounts soon, so that the Department can assist them in studying the impact on their foreign revenues of the introduction of EMU?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point. He is right. The Conservative party should be encouraged to publish proper accounts and should recognise that there are a number of examples of cases in which, for a variety of reasons, various individuals and companies have been given time to prepare proper accounts, including some which might be rather closer to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) than the example that he gave.

    Science Policy
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: When she last met the chairmen of the research councils to discuss science policy. 119872]
    The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are in regular contact with members of the research councils. I met the chairmen formally on 29 October to discuss a range of science policy issues. I have arranged to meet them again formally in the new year, on 11 March.
    Mrs. Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of maintaining a strong science base to our competitive position for the future? Did he hear Sir Richard Sykes at the British Association for the Advancement of Science annual conference say that the system was creaking at the seams? He comes from an industry that employs 20,000 scientists and spends something like £5.5 million a day. The research councils want no more delays, no more reviews, no more buck passing. They want action. What does the hon. Gentleman intend to do?
    Mr. Battle: I seem to recall that the right hon. Lady was a member of the Medical Research Council in 1987–88. I seem to recall that I was present when Sir Richard Sykes made his remarks, in which he spelt out the impact on research of the previous Government's Budgets. We pick up the pieces of that, and we shall work hard to ensure that we have an excellent science, engineering and technology base. We shall work hard to defend it.
    Mr. Miller: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to discuss with the chairman the important work of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, especially its recent statements on the risk that some people will become uninsurable as a result of the actions of insurance companies? Does my hon. Friend agree that the House, which unanimously supported the creation of the commission, with the involvement of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), ought unanimously to deplore the actions of such insurance companies?
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. The Government welcome the publication yesterday of the commission's report, "Implications of Genetic Testing for Insurance". The commission issued its report at the same time as the Association of British Insurers met its long-standing commitment as an industry to publish its views. The contribution of the commission to the debate is important. We shall consider its views carefully and make recommendations. We shall respond in detail in the new year, but we welcome the report as an important contribution to the debate.
    Mr. Lansley: Further to his meetings with the chairmen of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, what action does the Minister propose to take to safeguard the scientific, technological and commercial expertise of the Royal Greenwich observatory in the constituency of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who is in her place?
    Mr. Battle: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is an inherited position. On 4 July we released PPARC from the prior options dogma of the previous Government. At the same time I said that when PPARC made its decision about where to locate astronomy, it should

    473
    explore every possible avenue to keep the observatory alive. I hope that that conversation is continuing because the good name of that institution ought to be retained.

    Renewable Energy
    Mr. Pickthall: If she will make a statement about her Department's policy towards promoting the greater use of renewable energy sources. [19873]
    Mr. Battle: The Government are undertaking a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources in line with our manifesto commitment. The policy review that I announced on 6 June is considering what action is necessary and practicable in order to achieve our target of generating 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's electricity needs from renewable energy by 2010. On 25 November, I announced proposals for a fifth non-fossil fuel obligation order, which allows new bids for renewable projects.
    Mr. Pickthall: I fully support the renewable energy policy and commend the work that my hon. Friend has done, but does he agree that subsidising wind turbines in upland areas of high landscape value with public money is an outrage? Should we not be looking at Danish models—[Interruption.] Perhaps we should do that, too. Should we not study placing wind turbines on offshore sites, as the Danes do, where they do no damage to the environment, visual or otherwise, rather than degrading our wonderful upland areas?
    Mr. Battle: I share my hon. Friend's view that we must locate wind turbines in appropriate sites. In taking measures to promote renewable energy, we must ensure that we do not jeopardise the environment as a whole. That means that we have to recognise the importance of policies to protect the landscape and wildlife, whether in areas of outstanding natural beauty or sites of special scientific interest. It is up to the local planning process to ensure that proposals for projects are located sensibly, sensitively and in agreement with local people. I hope that that has happened. Onshore wind projects make a significant, though not major, contribution. I encourage my hon. Friend by pointing out that offshore wind projects have been accepted and that two have been awarded non-fossil fuel obligation 4 contracts.
    Mrs. Browning: Does the Minister recall writing to me on 25 November in response to a letter that I sent him on 26 August in which I requested clarification of the Government's policy on prioritising all the fuels available to them for generating power? His reply said that he was surprised that I had asked such a question and that it hardly fell to Government to prioritise fuels. That does not seem to align with the answer that he gave the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) or with the announcement of the Deputy Prime Minister on gas-fired power stations. Will he now give me a substantive reply or must I wait another three months?
    Mr. Battle: If I recall her letter rightly, the hon. Lady asked whether we would fix percentages for certain fuels.
    Mrs. Browning: No.
    Mr. Battle: If she meant something different, it was hard to discern it from her letter. It was her party that put
    474
    every source of fuel generation into the private sector and let them compete in a marketplace. It is hardly becoming for her to suggest that we go back and fix the lot.

    Single Currency
    Mr. Robathan: What representations she has received from business about the effect of a single currency. [19874]
    Mrs. Beckett: I receive a variety of representations from business about a wide range of issues, including the single currency.
    Mr. Robathan: From those representations, does the right hon. Lady agree that the overwhelming majority of small businesses oppose the single currency, as do the overwhelming majority of people in Britain? Can she tell the House exactly how many representations she has received for and against the single currency?
    Mrs. Beckett: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman figures, although we will endeavour to, if it is easy to do. Of course there is great anxiety among small businesses about the potential impact of the single currency, and that is understandable. It is particularly unfortunate that the previous Government left everyone in so much ignorance and gave small businesses in particular the impression that they did not have to consider the issues unless and until Britain made a decision to join. That was a profoundly mistaken way of conducting the debate and has left many small businesses at the mercy of misinformation and lack of planning.
    The hon. Gentleman says that there is evidence of hostility. I am well aware that the Institute of Directors, for example, has expressed concern about the potential costs to small business. [Interruption.] Although the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), with his usual inaccuracy, says that the IOD is against, it, like the Confederation of British Industry, believes that in the long term, it is in Britain's interests to join economic and monetary union. It merely takes the view that in the short term, there could be considerable costs, particularly for small business. Those are exactly the sort of issues that we are addressing.
    Mr. Llew Smith: Will the Minister confirm that if we join the single currency, under article 107 or 109 of the Maastricht treaty, it will be illegal for democratically elected Parliaments to try to influence the European central bank on issues such as unemployment or, indeed, general economic policy?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend should recognise that the criteria that were decided for the statutes of the central bank, which underlay the moves towards economic and monetary union, were discussed before the new Government came to power. We have to live with our legal inheritance. Given that, we have always taken the view, and it is now being argued strongly by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, that the economic advantage and disadvantage to Britain, the balance involved in how those issues are handled, and how and whether we get sustainable convergence, retain flexibility to operate and address employment issues, are exactly the issues about which the Government are concerned and which we are seeking to consider.

    475
    My hon. Friend must also be aware that most recently, particularly since we came into office, we have brought the issue of employment and employability high up the agenda of the European Union.
    Mr. Breed: Does the Secretary of State agree that not only is a great education programme about the single currency needed for business during next year, but that it should be widened to include the whole country because from 1999 that change will affect every person? It is clear that there is extreme ignorance about how the single currency will affect all our lives.
    Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Among the many damaging legacies that we inherited from the previous Government is the utterly mistaken assumption that if economic and monetary union goes ahead and Britain is not a member, that is a matter of indifference to us. It will have a huge impact on our financial services, on the competitiveness of our companies and on the way in which we trade. Some British-based companies are already proposing to do many of their transactions in euros. The single currency will have an impact on people's lives. I know that the retail sector, for example, is increasingly aware of that and is beginning to cope with it. It is sad that it was not encouraged to do so by the previous Government.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Olner: How many jobs she estimates have been created in the United Kingdom since 1 May as a result of inward investment. [19875]
    Mr. Ian McCartney: In addition to projects already notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau since 1 May involving 7,893 new jobs, there have been some more recent announcements such as Capital One creating 900 jobs in the east midlands, ADI creating 600 new jobs in the north-east, Cadence creating 1,800 new jobs in Scotland and Pfizer creating 1,000 new jobs in the south-east. That is clear evidence that the United Kingdom remains the best place in Europe for companies to do business.
    Mr. Olner: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. That some of those new jobs have been created in the midlands is particularly welcome. Can my hon. Friend confirm that those jobs have been created because of the Government's economic competence and because of their ties with Europe and the fact that they want to work in partnership with fellow European firms? Will he also comment on the fact that inward investment is not at all threatened by the fact that we want to introduce a minimum wage to make working conditions tolerable for the lower-paid?
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The hallmark of all that inward investment is good employment practice, investment in the work force, training and good working conditions. They make for a successful enterprise. The marked feature of those companies that have announced the creation of new jobs today, and those that have done so in the past, is that they want to work in partnership with the Government not only
    476
    here but in Europe and in partnership with their work forces. By doing so, they will create and build a better economy in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Tom King: The Minister has recognised the importance of inward investment, so could he comment on the statement that appeared in this week's edition of The Economist that whereas the agenda of the Industrial Development Advisory Board used to have a considerable number of items on it for consideration which were designed to support inward investment, the last four meetings of it have been cancelled because of the absence of any items to be included on that agenda?
    Mr. McCartney: The IDAB meets when it needs to meet to make investment decisions. This country has a significant number of on-going projects which, if successful, will create thousands of new jobs, such as those that I have just announced. Since 1 May, more than 7,000 jobs have been created. The Government are working to maintain Britain as the No. 1 location for inward investment and it will remain thus because of the Government's policies.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to commend the outstanding record of the Northern Development Company, which has won inward investment under the chairmanship of Sir George Russell? Will he further ensure that a Dutch auction between Scotland, Wales and the English regions for winning new jobs is avoided at all costs? Will he ensure that there is a level playing field for the English regions?
    Mr. McCartney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful question, which gives me an opportunity to make it clear that this Government, and this Government alone, have started to take a co-ordinated approach towards the English regions, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. As a consequence, senior Ministers are considering the arrangements for the concordat between all parts of the United Kingdom and there will be an announcement on those arrangements when they are ready. The concordat will ensure that Britain remains the No. 1 European investment portfolio. That will mean that every part of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions—will have the opportunity to attract new investment and new jobs.
    Mr. Chidgey: Does the Minister share my concern at the fact that the withdrawal of a number of major investments from the far east owing to the particular problems there is now threatening the expected job creation programmes in those areas? Does he accept that competition for inward investment on the basis of Government grants alone is becoming more or less unsustainable? Is not the key issue in most of the decisions the quality and level of skills of the local work force? In the context of the Government's programme for a concordat to spread best practice throughout the regions, what action does the Minister propose to take to ensure that that best practice includes high skills training that is spread outward and implemented through the regional development agencies?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we cannot rely on grants alone. What is

    477
    required is a package that includes infrastructure, skills development, new skills, the upgrading of skills and the opportunity for employers to enter a local labour market and succeed because the necessary skills exist. That is why my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is to issue a competitiveness White Paper, working with industry, and establishing a benchmark and audit to ensure that, in every sector of the economy, skills are upgraded and skills shortages can be dealt with.
    This is the first Government in two decades to have taken the issue seriously, which is why industry after industry is working with the Government to improve the competitiveness of the UK economy. That process includes many of the inward investments that are now working with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure the upgrading of skills and infrastructure.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does my hon. Friend expect any further inward investment initiatives involving the Nomura bank of Japan? As the bank is reported to have made a £350 million windfall profit as a result of the sale of a train rolling stock company—a valuable public asset that was disposed of by the previous Government at about half its value—do the Government expect the beneficiaries of the windfall profit to be looking to invest in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. McCartney: We as a Government have a clear policy of trying to attract inward investment from a range of sources that includes companies, such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend, which have a record of investment. We want to try to ensure that, whatever the company and wherever the company's headquarters, it will invest in the United Kingdom. That will bring new investment and new job opportunities to a range of sectors in the United Kingdom economy.
    Mr. Boswell: It is nice to stand opposite the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box and hear him concede that the inward investment position that he inherited from the previous Government was the strongest in Europe. Has he noticed that, despite the minor league successes that he has claimed, when it comes to the main event, the cup final, the score is Toyota 1-United Kingdom 1 under a Conservative Government and Toyota 2-United Kingdom 0 under a Labour Government? Is that not a good litmus test of the success or comparative success of investment policies? Will the Minister spend a little time over the Christmas recess searching his conscience and reflecting on whether a number of aspects of the present Government's policy, including the minimum wage, may be damaging our competitiveness and our attraction?
    Mr. McCartney: I know that the hon. Gentleman has been in the job for less than 24 hours, but he did not need to come to the Dispatch Box just to show how ignorant he is of the subject that he has been given at such short notice. Toyota has made it absolutely clear that it has invested in two of its three European models in the United Kingdom. The company has already said that it will increase its investment in the UK and that the UK is central to its European operations. It has also said that 50 per cent. and more of the goods and services going into the French plant will come from the UK supply base exporting into Europe. As for the minimum wage, in raising that subject in the way he did, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should also have declared an interest.

    Mobile Telephones
    Mr. Pound: If she will make a statement about the development of the third-generation mobile telephones. [19877]
    Mrs. Roche: The Government are determined that the UK should be at the forefront in Europe in the provision of third-generation mobile communications. Therefore, we published a detailed consultation document in July setting out the proposed licensing and regulation framework for third-generation mobile communications operators. The Government are giving careful consideration to all the comments that have been received and we shall consult the industry further as proposals are developed in more detail.
    Mr. Pound: I give a warm welcome to my hon. Friend's answer and to the fact that the Government clearly recognise the opportunities for business offered by new telecommunications technology. Will she accept my assurance that many leading UK companies also welcome that? Those companies include Ericsson, which, although unfortunately located slightly to the west of my constituency, sponsors Queens Park Rangers football club, which, although located slightly to the east of my constituency, numbers among its many thousands of supporters a small group who have been positively identified as living in Ealing, North. Will she tell the House what is the Government's preferred technology for the third generation of mobile telephones?
    Mrs. Roche: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity and his constituents on having such an able representative, who contrives to mention his constituency at every opportunity—something that is warmly appreciated. The Government are taking a lead within the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, which is developing the technical standards for third-generation mobile phones. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, this week, my officials have been attending an ETSI meeting and I have instructed them to support the wide band code division multiple access standard. That standard offers the best chance of a single global standard for the third generation, which will give European companies the opportunity to compete in world markets.

    Foresight Programme
    Mr. Connarty: What mechanisms she will employ to improve co-ordination across Departments in implementing the foresight programme. [19878]
    Mrs. Beckett: I commissioned an audit of the foresight programme across Government within four weeks of taking office. On 22 October, I published the findings and announced that a ministerial foresight group was being established under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry to provide top-level co-ordination of the foresight programme across Whitehall. That group met for the first time last week and will take regular progress reports from the Whitehall foresight group, which co-ordinates departmental participation at official level. Those actions demonstrate the Government's commitment to foresight and our determination to drive it forward.
    Mr. Connarty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Obviously, regional involvement will play a key

    479
    part in the success of the foresight programme. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council's decision to allocate £7.5 million for foresight-related research in Scotland over the next three years?
    Mrs. Beckett: Indeed, I shall. I am aware of that allocation and warmly welcome it. My hon. Friend is entirely right that, in taking forward the foresight programme, we need both to develop its regional impact and initiative and to use the supply chain to spread awareness of its work and the contribution that it can make down to small and medium businesses across the country. We are continuing to do exactly that.
    Mr. Donaldson: Will the President of the Board of Trade join me in welcoming the commitment by the private sector to advances in technology over the years? I am thinking particularly of companies such as Bombardier Shorts in Belfast. How much are the Government prepared to commit to the foresight programme, in terms of financial support for that vital industry? When will that support be forthcoming?
    Mrs. Beckett: We have already announced up to £10 million for the future of the foresight link programme, and £5 million for the foresight vehicle link programme. We are committed to the development and advancement of that programme, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that we are also engaged in a comprehensive spending review, right across the Government. I am therefore not in a position to tell him how we shall be placed in future years, but I can assure him that that is an important priority for the Department—all the more so because it draws in the wider business community, which is making a valuable contribution to the work.
    Mr. Beard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a high proportion of the foresight programme depends on biotechnology, and that Britain may not reap the full benefits of its position in biotechnology unless active steps are taken to alleviate public anxiety about the application of that technology?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right—those issues do need to be addressed. We are engaging in public consultation on them, but we believe it vital that there should be a wide spread of information and sensibly encouraged thorough debate. People must be aware of the impact of the decisions that can be made, and of the market potential for creative British scientists and companies.

    Chambers of Commerce
    Mr. Simon Hughes: How frequently and by what mechanism she consults chambers of commerce; and if she will make a statement. [19879]
    Mrs. Roche: I consult chambers of commerce through their national representative organisation, the British Chambers of Commerce, and also through individual chambers. For example, the BCC is a valued national
    480
    partner which participates in various business link working groups which meet at regular intervals throughout the year.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister think about bringing the chambers of commerce into more regular and routine consultations, which is what they tell me they would value? For instance, we now have a draft Budget; they could be formally consulted on it, so that we could know their responses to the budgetary proposals. The chambers also have views on local government finance and other Government policies. They want to know that those views are collected and part of the public debate. If the Minister would do that for them, they would be very pleased.
    Mrs. Roche: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we consult the chambers of commerce very regularly. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago, I met them two days running. We contact them continually, and did so over our recent late payment legislation. They are a partner that is valued by the Department and the Government.
    Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although there are some good chambers of commerce, there are some pretty awful ones too? Is she evaluating chambers of commerce that have amalgamated with business links and training and enterprise councils, to see how successful they have been? If there is to be regeneration at the grass roots, let it be done with best practice; and let us put an end to some of those lawyers' talking shops which do not deal with the local economic situation.
    Mrs. Roche: I warmly welcome the great work done by chambers of commerce in consulting their members, in setting up an accreditation system and in forming core chambers. My hon. Friend is right to point out that there have been successful mergers, many of them with good practices. When such mergers take place, we must obtain proper value for public money, and small and medium businesses, to which the Government are so committed, must be given the service that they need.
    Mrs. Gillan: In her very regular consultations with chambers of commerce, the hon. Lady will no doubt have discovered that many of their members, especially small retailers, have been deeply worried by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, who boasted to consumers in August, in an interview with the Sunday Mirror, that he would slash the prices of fridges, televisions, videos and perfume by 30 per cent. before Christmas. Has he done that? No. That is another promise to the consumer broken by the Government. Will not the only wrapping that this Minister gets for Christmas be a rapping over his knuckles?
    Mrs. Roche: In the true Christmas spirit, I congratulate the hon. Lady on her punchy question, but I say to her that I have had no such message from retailers. Small businesses have expressed warm appreciation of our policy.
    It is always good to see the hon. Lady, and it is interesting to note what she has to say on that subject. Recently, she told The Sunday Times that the Conservative party's failure with small business had

    481
    contributed to its losing the general election. She told the The Sunday Times and the Federation of Small Businesses that very little policy on business—and especially small businesses—will emanate from the Opposition. We have noticed that again today.

    Energy Sources
    Jacqui Smith: What action her Department is taking to secure diverse and reliable sources of energy. [19880]
    Mr. Battle: The Government's energy policy is to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable energy at competitive prices. We are reviewing a number of specific policy areas, such as the regulation of utilities, support for renewables and clean coal technology. On 3 December, I announced a review looking into how the issues of security of supply and fuel diversity should be addressed in considering applications for power station developments. We propose to defer decisions on outstanding applications for power station consents until that review has been completed. The formal terms of reference of the review will be announced shortly.
    Jacqui Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. On the subject of energy, I commend him and his ministerial colleagues for being an especially good and reliable source of energy themselves, in the excellent work that they have undertaken since taking office. What effect will the Kyoto agreement have on the United Kingdom's energy policy? Will not new technology, such as clean coal technology, have an important role to play in enabling the UK to reach its targets?
    Mr. Battle: In the Kyoto deal, for the first time, all the developed countries have agreed to take on legally binding emission targets, and the deal will lead to a real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The targets are 5.2 per cent. below 1990 levels for developed countries. The European Union has agreed to an 8 per cent. cut. The UK has a domestic aim of reducing emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels. We shall work on ways to achieve that aim, but I agree with my hon. Friend that clean coal technology is vital in securing the future of deep-mined coal; that is why we are supporting it and doing what we can to back it. It will have a part to play in meeting our emissions targets.
    Mr. Paterson: When considering energy policy, which has priority—offering the British consumer the cheapest possible electricity, honouring environmental commitments at Kyoto or keeping people in jobs in the energy industries?
    Mr. Battle: They all have a priority, but we inherited a difficult situation because the Conservative Government had fragmented the energy sectors and forced them to compete with one another. When coal, or any other sector, is being priced out because the playing field has been stacked against it, we work hard—as we have worked hard—to ensure that there is a level playing field, to ensure that there is a place for coal in future energy policy.
    Mr. O'Neill: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he and his colleagues have done to redress some
    482
    of the imbalance against the coal industry. Will he, in the course of his review, consider looking at the ownership of the power stations that are currently in the hands of PowerGen and National Power and are not being used to burn coal? If those owners are not prepared to use those stations for the purpose for which they are intended, will my hon. Friend suggest that they divest themselves of them and sell them to people who might be prepared to use British coal to create electricity, securing jobs for British workers?
    Mr. Battle: I do not need to remind my hon. Friend that we no longer own the power generators, and three independent companies are coming on stream. I hope that the review into the pool mechanism—the buying-in system for power stations—will help to ensure that there is a level playing field and that some fuels are not priced out.
    Mr. Letwin: In the light of the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), will he admit that he was effectively saying that he has not the slightest idea what the priorities of his energy policy are?
    Mr. Battle: I sometimes wonder whether Opposition Members are on this earth or Fuller's. I can only reply as I did earlier: we want secure, diverse and sustainable energy at competitive prices. Perhaps it is beyond the wit of Opposition Members to understand that complex equation.

    Soft Drinks
    Helen Jones: If she will investigate the levels of profits on sales of soft drinks in public houses. [19881]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): My main concern is about prices. The industry report published on 17 November revealed that consumers buying soft drinks in pubs were getting small measures, bad choice and poor quality. Those who choose non-alcoholic drinks deserve a fairer deal. I am determined to give it to them.
    Helen Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not plainly ridiculous that consumers are often charged more for non-alcoholic drinks than for alcoholic drinks? When I studied the matter in my area, I found that one pub charged £1.70 for lime and soda but only £1.65 for cider; another charged £1.70 for coke and £1.20 for lager and lime. Not only is that unfair to consumers, but it detracts from the Government's campaign to stop drinking and driving. Does my hon. Friend agree that the practice is not only unfair but dangerous?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, it certainly does not help. I have left leading representatives of the drinks industry in no doubt about our concern over the prices of soft drinks.

    Consumer Protection
    Mr. Ainger: What measures her Department has taken to improve consumer protection standards. [19882]
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: How long do I have? We have introduced the toughest firework safety campaign ever

    483
    and new laws to protect the public against dangerous goods. We have sent out warnings to 19 million gas users about carbon monoxide dangers and have introduced a host of other measures. In short, we are making up for lost time.
    Mr. Ainger: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his team on the work that they have done in the past seven months to protect and enhance consumers' interests. He will be aware of the alarm and concern expressed by consumer groups and reputable bakers at the previous Government's attempt to deregulate the weights of the traditional British loaf. I am aware that negotiations have taken place with the European Commission on this issue. What are the results of those negotiations? Can my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will protect the traditional British loaf?
    Mr. Griffiths: While it is true that the previous Government's actions in 1993 prompted the European Commission to intervene and oppose our limits on bread sizes, we have successfully negotiated with the Commission to retain the traditional small and standard loaf and avoid consumers being short-changed.
    Mr. Bercow: Was the Minister reprimanded after he intervened to prejudice the outcome of the inquiry into the pricing of electrical goods? Did he suffer a penalty from the President of the Board of Trade? Given that this is the fourth occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has been removed from involvement in a competition matter, is it not now time that he was removed from office permanently?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman believes the tale told twice by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). It is completely unreliable information and he is mistaken to tell the House that I have been removed from the electrical retailing inquiry. I intend to maintain my keen interest in those
    484
    matters. In terms of the legislation that we have been considering since May, perhaps the House would like me to add a measure on misleading information from the Conservative party.

    British Aerospace
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: When she will make a decision on the application by British Aerospace for launch aid for the A340– 500/600. [19883]
    Mr. Battle: British Aerospace's application is under consideration. We shall make a decision as soon as possible.
    Mr. Prentice: I thank my hon. Friend, and warmly congratulate him on the decision last month to invest £200 million in the development of the Rolls-Royce Trent 500 engine, which will power the new long-haul airbus 340£500/600 series aeroplane. May I remind him that, if the Government invest in the new airbus, 50 per cent. of the content of those planes will be British? There is understandable nervousness not just in British Aerospace, but throughout the north-west, in Lancashire and especially in my constituency, in anticipation of the Government reaching an early decision, and the right decision, to invest in that project.
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend has a record of championing the industry in the House, and he clearly continues to do so. Rolls-Royce was a unique case. It is the United Kingdom's only large aero-engine manufacturer, and one of only three in the world, so I welcome his comments. The Government welcome the official launch of the A340£500/600 on 8 December. The large number of potential customers who attended the launch is an encouraging sign of success for the programme. I recognise that BAe's application has taken time. All the issues must be considered thoroughly, and the decision will be announced as soon as we can do so.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am sorry to say that I did not arrive in the Chamber yesterday in time to receive notice of the point of order made by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). Having read it and the exchanges on Tuesday night, I regret that, during the rough and tumble of those exchanges, I appeared so dismissive of the point that he made. Although that legislation was of a general character, if he and other hon. Members consider that I ought to have referred to my specific business interests, I apologise to them, to the House and to you.
Madam Speaker: The House and I are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter arising from the business statement made by the Leader of the House last week, reported in Hansard at column 1197, in which I notice that, having given the business for this week, she went on to talk about the provisional business for the first week after the Christmas recess. At this stage, we know no more about the business for that week than was given as provisional last week by the right hon. Lady.
I was astonished, therefore, to see that the Leader of the House was not seeking to make a definitive statement today about the business for the first week back after the recess. That surely leaves you, and the House, in some doubt as to what the business will be that week. Will you guide the House, and perhaps give a gentle hint to the Leader of the House, so that she might repair that no doubt unintentional omission now, or failing that, come to the House on Monday and tell us what we will be doing in the week following the recess?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I will not allow a debate on a point of order, but I see that the President of the Council wishes to make a further point of order.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I think that it has been for the general convenience of the House that I have been able, on many occasions in recent weeks, to announce two weeks' business. The second week is always provisional, and that provisional announcement stands, unless a change is made. There is no need to make any change in this case, so the provisional business that I announced last week stands as the business for the first week back.
Mr. Tom King: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not true that the purpose of the business statement is not just to tell the House the business, but to give Back Benchers the opportunity to raise issues of concern? If I understand correctly what the right hon. Lady said, if she announces two weeks' business, and the business stands for the second week, we shall never have a business statement in the second week.
486
I want to raise an issue that is new since last week. I am concerned about the serious situation that exists in agriculture, and the worrying situation for farmers. How can we find out when the House will get a statement on that matter, before the House rises and before farmers are left with a worrying Christmas and new year?
Madam Speaker: I can deal with the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. He obviously was not in the House yesterday, but I understand that a statement will be made before the House rises.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following the very gracious statement made by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), I ask you how we will handle the problem caused by his replacement, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is an employer of agricultural workers and is to lead for the Opposition on the minimum wage Bill, which deals with precisely that subject—
Madam Speaker: Order. Those are not points of order, and they have nothing whatever to do with me.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the absence of a business statement in which the Leader of the House could tell us what business the House will consider before the recess, is it in order that the BBC should be informed of the details of an impending statement on Monday regarding the terms of reference of an inquiry into bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? How can hon. Members be sure that we will be informed first of business and of details of business, rather than learning about it through the media and through departmental briefings to the media?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have always deprecated statements being made to the media before they are made in the House. He knows also that the right hon. Lady gave the business of the House for the coming week. I do not pay much attention to the media or the BBC—they are not always as accurate as they might be. Many Ministers and other hon. Members comment on newspaper and media reports. I think that we should concern ourselves with business in the House rather than with what is written and broadcast outside it.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You may recall that yesterday I raised a point of order concerning declarations of interest at Question Time and you said that—if I wanted to—I could write to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I have done that, and I shall send you a copy of the letter. According to Hansard, you advised my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) to do so also.
The point I wish to raise today does not arise from the earlier statement by the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). The national minimum wage measure will be considered by the House of Commons, and I think that it is very important that, during debates, at Question Time and in interventions, those hon. Members who have an interest—such as a financial interest—in opposing a national minimum wage should declare it to the House.

487
With the greatest respect to you, Madam Speaker, I think that that illustrates the need for some sort of declaration of interest at Question Time.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Before you consider the matter fully, do you not think that the same principle would apply to any hon. Member who is sponsored by a trade union, for example? If we are talking about an alleged connection between a Member of Parliament and those who might stand to gain from a national minimum wage of whatever level, presumably exactly the same constraints must apply to any hon. Member who is sponsored by a trade union.
Madam Speaker: The issue is rather more complicated than many hon. Members realise when they raise such matters. For that reason, I thought it wise that the matter should be submitted to the Procedure Committee so that it may examine all sides of the problem.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I can be helpful on a couple of matters in this season of good will. On the first question, there are no sponsored Members of Parliament any more. As to raising points of order about business questions, I remind you, Madam Speaker—you will probably recall it—that last week the shadow Leader of the House complained bitterly about having to return on Monday 22 December. I thought that hon. Members rose during business questions to ask that particular matters be raised in the House in the following week. As the Tory party does not wish to be here next week, what are Opposition Members complaining about?
Madam Speaker: On that note, we must move on to the main business of the House.

Clerk of the House (Retirement)
3.38 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move,
That Madam Speaker be requested to convey to Sir Donald William Limon KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of this House, the House's gratitude for his long and distinguished career, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
I am sure that, in moving this motion, I can unite the House, and that hon. Members on both sides will support it—from those few hon. Members whose experiences range to the days before Donald Limon joined the Clerks Department to those hon. Members who were elected earlier this year and who, for the first time, had the advantage of one of the changes introduced by Sir Donald: induction for new Members.
Sir Donald has worked in the House since 1956, which means that more than 100 Members were not even born when he first came here. Not surprisingly, his career has witnessed remarkable and sweeping changes, including—some new Members may not realise this—changes to the procedures and workings of the House.
Sir Donald has not only witnessed change; he has been a key figure in promoting change. As Clerk to the European Select Committee and to the Select Committee on the Treasury, in the early stages of their development, he made an important contribution to the successful development of the present Select Committee system. He was the first secretary to the Public Accounts Commission when the National Audit Office was set up in its present form in 1983, and he was the first secretary to the House of Commons Commission.
In 1990, when Sir Robin Ibbs was asked by the House of Commons Commission to review the provision to Members of the services of the House, Sir Donald was a member of the team that made wide-ranging recommendations, from the structure of domestic Committees to the introduction of comprehensive financial management systems within the House.
As Clerk of the House, Sir Donald has done much to ensure that the Departments of the House actively co-operate with one another. He and his wife, Joyce, have received much praise from the staff of the House for helping to break down barriers in that area.
A Clerk of the House must have a thorough knowledge of our procedures, and the House is indebted to Sir Donald for his editorial skills in the production of the 22nd edition of "Erskine May", which appeared a few weeks ago, and which I am sure every Member has studied carefully.
The Clerks of the House must possess knowledge of our procedures, have the temperament to manage to remain calm in the Chamber and be able to be patient with Members whose familiarity with the details of "Erskine May" is not quite as great as their own. I know that Sir Donald will not mind me using this occasion to praise not only himself but his team for all the work that they do, and to express our thanks to the Clerks of the House as a whole.
Sir Donald's qualities of combining great knowledge of our procedures with a practical approach to problems that arise from time to time—his approachability, combined

489
with his complete impartiality—have made him an outstanding asset to the House. We are grateful to Sir Donald, and he and Lady Limon will carry with them into retirement our appreciation, our thanks and our best wishes.
3.42 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: On behalf of the Opposition, I am delighted to associate those of us on the Opposition Benches with the tribute paid to Sir Donald Limon by the Leader of the House. The whole House will wish to give warm support to the motion of gratitude to Sir Donald for his more than 40 years of distinguished service—latterly, of course, as Clerk of the House.
As the House will have heard, Sir Donald joined the Clerks Department in 1956. Since then he has been closely involved with the many changes, both institutional and procedural, that the House has introduced over that time. His career illustrates the evolutionary spirit of change that characterises our parliamentary democracy.
As the Leader of the House has said, it would be impossible to overstate the debt that the whole House owes the Clerks for their knowledge, their commitment, their experience and their dedication to the House and what that represents. Sir Donald, in his many years of service, personifies that knowledge, that experience, and that dedication as well as a great deal of patience and courtesy, along with the ability, on occasions, to keep a straight face.
Since the general election, with so many new Members on both sides of the House and with the dramatic change of role for all existing Members, the skills and knowledge of the Clerk of the House have been much in demand, as many hon. Members wrestle with procedures and customs, some of which may seem curious, but all of which have their origins in the protection of the House, its role in our parliamentary democracy, and the interests and rights of Members and their constituents.
Sir Donald has applied wisdom, tact and practical common sense to these and all matters throughout his long and distinguished career. I wish him and Lady Limon a long, happy and fruitful retirement. They will carry with them the gratitude and affection of us all.
3.44 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I wish to associate the Liberal Democrats with what has been said by the Leader of the House and by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), the shadow Leader of the House, and to express our own gratitude and best wishes to Sir Donald and Lady Limon.
We particularly appreciate the way in which Sir Donald has been prepared to help individual Back Benchers and smaller parties—I no longer include the Liberal Democrats in that category—and the way in which, under his leadership, his Department dedicates itself to the whole House in a pluralistic, political way. His formidable knowledge and talents have been made available to us all, and we are truly grateful to him for that.
From my experience outside the House, when somebody retires, the most formidable contribution that he or she has to make is to ensure that no gap is left,
490
and that the team that is left behind is as formidable and dedicated to the task. That is certainly true in Sir Donald's case, and we appreciate that. The skill, dedication and calibre of the team he leaves is a tribute to his leadership.
I shall underline just one other point—the way in which the Clerks, under Sir Donald's leadership, have been prepared to tackle difficult changes and respond to the challenges that the House has thrown at them. His Department has dedicated itself to that, not just for the good of the House but for the nation.
3.46 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I am delighted to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the motion.
The motion refers to Sir Donald Limon's distinguished career. It is perfectly clear that that is not an empty phrase. It has indeed been a very distinguished career. He has made a significant contribution to the House and to the evolution and change of its procedures.
All of us in the House are heavily dependent on the Clerks. Perhaps those parties that are still small are even more dependent on the Clerks for their help and guidance, which has always been given to us unstintingly and very helpfully, and as Clerk of the House, Sir Donald has the titular responsibility for that. It is therefore quite appropriate that we take opportunities such as this to express our appreciation and gratitude to the Clerks generally, and particularly to Sir Donald and his wife for what they have done for the House and for hon. Members.
I hope that Sir Donald and Lady Limon will have a good and rewarding retirement. It is clear he has many interests that he can pursue during his retirement. We wish him well as he leaves the House.
3.47 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I very much appreciate this opportunity, on behalf of my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party, to wish Sir Donald and Lady Limon a very happy retirement. I should like to be associated with the very erudite expressions of appreciation that have already been made, to which I would not aspire, except to say that, on behalf of my colleagues, I wish Sir Donald and Lady Limon the peace of Christmas, and health in the new year. I hope that the attributes of peace and health will be with them for the many years of their lives that I hope that they have in front of them.
3.48 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I, too, am delighted to associate myself with the remarks that have been expressed in connection with Sir Donald's retirement. I wish him well.
Those of us who represent smaller parties, such as Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, sometimes try to punch above our weight, yet whenever we have approached Sir Donald—or any other members of his staff—in connection with the sometimes labyrinthine procedures of the House, we have never been met with anything other than courtesy and the greatest assistance.
I wish Sir Donald and Lady Limon a very long and happy retirement. I am sure that he will watch with interest the development of procedures in the Scottish

491
Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. If he has any advice to offer, we will welcome it. I can assure him of a very warm welcome any time that he visits those establishments.
3.49 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I, too, associate myself with the remarks made by those who have gone before me. Representing, as I do, one of the smallest parties in the House, I should like to say that we have always found the Clerks of the House, especially Sir Donald, most willing to help, encourage and instruct.
I look upon the Clerks as a guiding star. I learned in another place, which was a replica of this place, that, when the Speaker, or the occupant of the Chair, leaned forward to talk to the Clerks, I was on good ground, because the Speaker was not sure whether to call me to order or not. But when the Clerk turned round and initiated a discussion with the Speaker, I knew that I was in for trouble. Therefore, the Clerks have always been my guiding star, and I hope to keep my eye on who comes next.
3.50 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The House has been blessed in its senior Clerks, and Donald Limon is one of the most distinguished of that line. Of the many good works that he has carried out, not only for the House, one should particularly mention the job that he has done in relation to other Commonwealth Parliaments.
Sir Donald has gone out of his way to assist Commonwealth Clerks and Commonwealth Parliaments generally. I had the honour of serving with him on a seminar in Africa, which I thoroughly enjoyed. One particularly indignant Commonwealth Clerk was holding forth, giving the opinion that no Member of Parliament should be able to serve unless he or she knew the Standing Orders back to front. The next questioner then asked me whether I thought that that was correct, and I said, "Well, yes, except that it would rule out perhaps half the House of Commons." I do not know who it was, but a little voice alongside me was heard to mutter, "Two thirds."
We will miss the wit, intelligence and commitment of Donald Limon, and not just because he has served every Member of the House with great charm and understanding of how individual and awkward Members of Parliament can be. Above all, we shall miss Donald Limon the man. We shall miss his particular personality; his ability to make us all laugh with an absolutely straight face, something which he has succeeded in passing on to all his colleagues in the Clerks Department.
We shall miss a man who understood that his commitment was to the House of Commons, and that democracy needs people with that breadth of vision, and who has kept us firmly on the path that ensures that the mother of Parliaments will remain of importance everywhere in the world.
I shall miss Donald Limon a great deal. I send him and Joyce my very warmest regards and my great appreciation as a small and totally unimportant part, not only of a small party but of a virtually non-existent one—all Back Benchers.
3.52 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I, too, wish to add my comments to those already made about the great distinction, discretion and integrity of Donald Limon. It has been my privilege for many years to be his Member of Parliament. It is a source of regret that, upon his forthcoming retirement, he will move out of the area. At least, he assured me that that was the reason, as opposed to any lack of quality in the local representation.
I am delighted that Sir Donald has remained a distinguished office holder of the Churt cricket club, and I shall in future seek to attend more of its functions on a more regular basis.
3.53 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: As a longstanding member of the Procedure Committee, I associate myself with the warm tributes that have been paid to Sir Donald this afternoon and with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) in relation to Sir Donald's work with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I wish Sir Donald and Lady Limon a long and happy retirement.
3.54 pm
Mr. David Heath: It would not normally fall to a new Member to speak in such a debate, and I cannot match the long recollections of other Members. What I can say is that I was especially taken both by the warm welcome and by the enormous courtesy that Sir Donald extended to new Members.
Sir Donald and his wife are now constituents of mine—very welcome ones—in Kingsdon, a quiet and tranquil village whose tranquillity is broken only by a flock of geese in the middle of the village. They are frequently noisy and disputatious and rarely make a lot of sense, so when Sir Donald feels a hankering after old times, he is welcome to walk down into the centre of the village.
I know that Sir Donald's friends in Somerset, as well as his friends in the House, will wish him and his wife a long and happy retirement.
3.55 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: As a middle ranker, from the middle range too, I join in the congratulations. I echo the views of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), especially about the range of activities that Sir Donald undertook within the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Delegates who came here, especially for the seminars, valued the work that he did there. On the level of personal friendship, too, he was delightful.
In one sense, Madam Speaker, you might miss Sir Donald, because the Speaker's ear will have gone—but I am sure that there will be another ear. Anyway, there is always that blessedness of those in positions of authority—learning to turn a deaf ear.
Another aspect that I noticed in the record of Sir Donald's achievement was the fact that he learned manual labour in removing the hunting boots to allow another Speaker to move into the Chair. At a time when hunting has become a debatable question, it is a delight to know that Sir Donald can move to an easier chair himself.

493
Not only will the House miss Sir Donald, but Members and our spouses will also miss the presence of Lady Limon. We give both of them our good wishes in retirement.
3.56 pm
Mr. Tony Colman: I associate myself with all that has been said already. As a new Member, I must say how much we needed the training and help that we received when we first entered the House in May. I especially want to speak about Lady Limon, because I remember the day in June when my assistant, Emma Thorogood, and I approached the formidable front door on the fifth floor of Norman Shaw South, and knocked on it for some advice. We were welcomed in effusively, as I am sure many Members have been before.
Over the six months since then, Lady Limon has welcomed many researchers, assistants and secretaries to meet her and take tea, and has helped in their induction into Parliament. I join in what has already been said in wishing Sir Donald and Lady Limon a long and happy retirement.
Madam Speaker: Before I put the Question, I want to add my own tribute to Donald Limon. As we have heard, he has served the House with distinction for more than 40 years. His support and wise counsel, afforded to me both as a Deputy Speaker and more recently as Speaker, has been effective and unstinting. With the admirable support of his wife Joyce, he has done much to sustain the morale and commitment of staff of the House at all levels. He takes with him into retirement our grateful thanks and the knowledge that his career has fulfilled his many talents. I shall miss both the Limons very much indeed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That Madam Speaker be requested to convey to Sir Donald William Limon KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of this House, the House's gratitude for his long and distinguished career, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.

Orders of the Day

  Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.58 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill marks another important step in the Government's programme for Northern Ireland. In line with the hopes and desires of the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland, the Government are looking for a society at peace—a society governed by the rule of law and clear principles of democracy—which respects the rights and traditions of all its citizens.
  The Stormont talks provide us with the opportunity to secure a just and enduring settlement, and we will continue to press forward with them. We will also continue to implement fair and effective policies on security, policing and public order. We need those for their own sakes, but we must also ensure that progress in one area is not threatened by festering disputes in others.
  One such area of dispute in recent years has, of course, been parades. The majority of parades in Northern Ireland pass off peacefully, but when things go wrong and local accommodation cannot be reached, parades and the counter-demonstrations associated with them have the capacity to polarise opinion, raise community tensions and generate extremes of emotion. As we have seen all too often, they can degenerate into major flashpoints of civil disorder.
  The Bill is born of the Government's desire to bring about accommodation and agreement where there are disputes over parades in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Norman A. Godman: The Parades Commission will play an important role. I welcome the increase in the membership of the commission set out in schedule 1, but may I humbly and modestly suggest that three of the commissioners should be women and that one should be someone with a legal or judicial background?
  Mr. Ingram: I note what my hon. Friend says. Of course, such matters may come up in Committee. From recollection, I do not think that that subject was raised in the debate in the other place, although my recollections are not 100 per cent. accurate. I will certainly see whether that and related matters were raised, but there is every likelihood that other hon. Members will discuss the composition of the independent commission in Committee.
  The Bill is based on the recommendations in the report of Dr. Peter North and his colleagues published in January this year. Their review of the law and practice in relation to parades in Northern Ireland was thorough-going and their report is an invaluable contribution to thinking in this highly contentious area. We remain grateful to them for their work.
  As hon. Members will be aware, the previous Government had announced the review following the appalling events surrounding the parade at Drumcree in

  495
  the summer of 1996. None of us should forget the widespread violence, disruption and lawlessness witnessed that summer. Nor should we forget the loss of life and injuries sustained by the Royal Ulster Constabulary and by those involved and caught up in the unrest, which lasted for nine days—149 RUC officers were injured and there were 192 civilian casualties, including one death. Nor should we forget the damage to property and to Northern Ireland's economy and image in the world at large. Those events prompted the review and the ensuing report.
  When the report was published, we said in opposition that we accepted its findings and would implement its recommendations. With the Bill, the Government are making good our pledge. The Government's feelings on the issue were reinforced by my experience and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this summer. No Secretary of State could have done more to bring about accommodation and a peaceful resolution of the dispute between the two sides in Portadown this year. However, as my right hon. Friend has acknowledged, she failed, but it was not for the want of trying against what proved to be impossible odds.
  As in previous years, the Chief Constable, the RUC and the Army were once again caught in the middle of two competing, inflexible forces. As the Chief Constable said so graphically at the time, the fact that public order considerations were the only ones to be taken into account meant that he had to choose between the lesser of two evils. The Bill is an attempt to ensure that no future RUC Chief Constable is boxed into that position again.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will, of course, have noticed the significance of the date when talking about intransigent positions—18 December. Having said that, why does the hon. Gentleman expect this legislation to have any greater effect than the previous legislation, which was not impartially, adequately and fully implemented to deal with counter-protests?
  Mr. Ingram: I recognise the date. I carry a lot of dates in my head and that one came to mind as the hon. Gentleman was speaking. Because I was searching for the date, I did not hear his point. I have no doubt that he will repeat the point in his speech; if he does, I will try to give him an answer today, failing which I will respond to him in writing.
  It is worth repeating that, as the Chief Constable said so graphically at the time, he had to choose the lesser of two evils; that was his view this year. It is important to avoid his being in the same position again.
  The Government's approach, like the North report, is based on recognising rights and responsibilities. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently published a White Paper on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into law in Britain and Northern Ireland. The convention provides for the protection of the right to peaceful assembly which, in Northern Ireland terms, protects the right to march. It is a basic right that the Government fully recognise, but, as the convention also recognises, it must be exercised with regard to the rights and freedoms of others. Like all rights, it brings responsibilities with it.
  496
  People also have the right to live their lives free from fear and intimidation, and there is a fundamental right to demonstrate and protest peacefully against events to which one is opposed; but that, too, brings with it the responsibility to respect the rights and freedoms of others.
  As the North report recognised, in Northern Ireland we have starkly competing rights. When that results in a dispute, as it does in a small number of the 3,000 or so parades each year, an accommodation has to be sought. The first goal of the Parades Commission, which will be properly established by the Bill, is to enable and facilitate the finding of such an accommodation.
  The commission was set up last spring by the previous Government and chaired by Alastair Graham. It was not at that time given the full remit that North recommended, but I hope that hon. Members will agree that it has performed important work in seeking to encourage local agreement in the months since its establishment. Despite the best efforts of Alastair Graham and his team, there is no doubt that, in the future, as in recent years, attempts to find an accommodation can be frustrated if there is no willingness on either side to seek compromise.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: That is a vital point, both in Londonderry and on the Ormeau road, where attempts were made in successive years to have rational discussions, but there was implacable opposition. Is the Minister aware that that opposition is developing, and not only in a few isolated areas? Seminars have been held in Belfast to promote estate control. There is a demand that there should be at least one former prisoner on each committee to control estates, and that is extending Sinn Fein-IRA control throughout Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Ingram: We are conscious of all those developments, as many of them take place in the public domain and there is public debate about them. The hon. Gentleman's point confirms the need for a Parades Commission with the role of seeking resolution to conflict. I am sure that he agrees that accommodation and the search for an agreement provide the best course for any party to a dispute.
  That is why all of us in the House, and those in positions of leadership throughout Northern Ireland, have a duty to encourage both sides to seek that accommodation. We all have an important role to play in creating a different climate from the one that has prevailed over recent years. Unfortunately, we have to recognise and accept that there are likely to be occasions when that accommodation cannot be found. That is why the legislation will also empower the commission to make determinations when agreement cannot be reached.
  I hope that that will always be a last resort. In itself, it will be a signal of failure, but not, I stress, on the part of the Parades Commission: it will be a failure of those on both sides of the dispute who did not succeed in reaching that desired accommodation. In making such determinations, the Parades Commission will be empowered to take account not only of public order considerations but of the wider impact that the procession may have on relationships within the community. The commission will also be able to take into account the failure of any specified person to abide by a code of conduct. The commission has already published the code of conduct and is consulting on it.

  497
  As the North report recommended, the commission will take account, in coming to a view, of whether the route of a parade is of long standing. We hope that that will go some way to easing the fears of those in the loyal orders who continue to maintain that the legislation is anti-parade. It is not; nor was it ever intended to be.
  I believe that the Bill is a crucial improvement on existing legislation. Might is never right; right is right. I hope that this new legislation will make that clearer than ever before.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister go back into the history of this matter and the changing of the order relating to public order? Is he not aware that some of the matters that he has mentioned were changes that were made in that order, and that the drafter of that order was none other than Mr. Lenahan from the Dublin Parliament, who said that they had got the order on the statute book of Northern Ireland which would make it easier for them to push forward their objectives? If we have a law governing Northern Ireland that is aimed at pushing forward the objective of subverting the constitution, in no way is that law going to work.
  The Minister has mentioned traditional parades, but traditional parades were taken completely away in that order. I remind the Minister that the majority of hon. Members on the Unionist Benches went to prison to highlight the matter because we realised that something dreadful would happen once the order was implemented. As we know, Gerry Adams said that he was working hard on it and had done good work on it.
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman asks me to go back into history with him. I have no intention of doing so, because I do not believe that an examination of history serves any purpose. We are at a point in time when I hope that we can build for the future of Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will start his history now and begin to look forward rather than constantly looking back. That is a vision and hope that the vast majority of people of Northern Ireland want from their local politicians and from the Government.
  Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Ingram: No. I have given way enough. I may give way later.
  The legislation is designed to assist the rule of law, and to discourage those who would seek to break it. In proposing the legislation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that we would take into account concerns raised with us and be sensitive to views of those on both sides of the community.
  The legislation, and the independent commission, require the support and co-operation of the whole community if they are to succeed. It was in that spirit that the Government took on board concerns raised with us this summer that the legislation was too narrowly focused on the cultural expressions of one community.
  498
  The extended remit, as it was called, of the Bill when it was first introduced in another place was designed to meet those concerns and to enable the commission to look at other cultural expressions that might have an adverse effect on relationships within the community. However, during the Bill's passage in the other place, it became clear that there was cross-community opposition to that provision. The Bill was, therefore, amended to take account of the united opposition to the proposal, and the extended remit was eventually removed from the Bill on Report.
  However, the Government's determination to ensure that the legislation is even-handed remains undiminished. We will continue to consider carefully all suggestions to ensure that our commitment to implement the findings of the North report is fulfilled in a balanced and even-handed way. The Government remain open to advice from right hon. and hon. Members of all parties to that effect, both before and during Committee.
  It is worth pointing out that several other useful amendments were made in the other place that are generally acknowledged to have improved the workability and acceptability of the Bill. Full and constructive debate led to a cross-party consensus on a number of issues, such as the need for an equalisation of the maximum penalties that can be imposed for the various offences under the Bill, and a return to the original definition in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 of "public procession", which now makes it clear that it includes processions involving vehicles and other conveyances.
  At this juncture, it is important to pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Dubs who was responsible for the Bill in the other place. I also pay tribute to the Lords who spoke on behalf of the Ulster Unionist party, the Conservative party, the Alliance party and the Liberal Democrat party, all of whom made major contributions in reaching agreement in these important areas. The Bill is the better for their input. I hope that we can achieve the same level of co-operation in this House.
  In recent years, a great deal has been asked of the Chief Constable and the Royal Ulster Constabulary in relation to disputed parades. They have shown equanimity, courage and determination in their attempts to resolve disputes and to manage the literally explosive situations that have arisen in recent years when an accommodation could not be found. All too often, they have, in my view, been expected to bear too much of the pressure. In recent years, Secretaries of State have also borne considerable pressure. It is not our intention simply to transfer that pressure solely to the Parades Commission.
  The Bill therefore not only establishes a Parades Commission empowered to make determinations in relation to parades but enables the Secretary of State, on application by the Chief Constable, to review the determination made by the commission and to revoke, amend or confirm it after consulting the commission, where practical.
  In reviewing the commission's decision, the Secretary of State will need to take all relevant factors into account—just like the commission—and not simply public order issues. Should all those attempts fail, on the day the RUC will continue to have the power to take action to deal with or prevent a breach of the peace.

  499
  The Secretary of State retains the power to ban public processions as currently set out in the order on public order.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: That brings us to the crux of the Bill. What if we are threatened with a Drumcree 4? What will the Secretary of State do then?
  Mr. Ingram: That question takes me down the road of trying to predict what may happen in the summer. It will be a matter of fine judgment by the commission in the lead-up, by the Chief Constable in relation to his powers, and in respect of the powers that reside in the Secretary of State. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that it would be wrong to try to develop the scenario of recent years and say that there would then be a specific determination. That determination rests with those who are responsible at the point at which the determination is made. The nature of the Bill means that different people are empowered to carry out that determination.
  Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the Minister will be happy to tell the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that the simple answer is that, in view of the relatively good outcome this summer, only one rational decision can be taken: not to assist the people who have caused the trouble by blocking the road in previous years. That is the only sensible way in which to proceed.
  Mr. Ingram: We could spend a long time debating the best way forward if we could predict what the future holds. I hope that we do not reach the flashpoint of conflict or stand-off. Different circumstances applied each time in 1995, 1996 and 1997. It flows from that that it would be wrong to try to say that the same thing will inevitably occur next summer. I hope that we all do everything in our power to seek to ensure that it will not be repeated. That is why I started by commenting on the impact of Drumcree 1995. Remember what happened in 1996 and 1997: the mayhem and riots that ensued, and the damage that that did to the good name of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Godman: I am sorry to be a nuisance to my hon. Friend, but perhaps I misheard what he said earlier. Will he confirm that the Chief Constable will not have the power to overturn a determination by the commission? Will he, instead, in the appropriate circumstances, have to go to the Secretary of State to have a determination overturned?
  Mr. Ingram: The Chief Constable will have the power under the public order legislation to decide, on the day, whether a parade should go ahead. The Secretary of State also has banning powers, as set out in the Bill, which are a straightforward transfer from the order on public order. Of course, the Secretary of State can revoke, amend or uphold a decision of the commission following a reference from the Chief Constable. There are a number of ways in which such matters can be examined. I hope that that answer helps my hon. Friend to understand the provisions relating to determinations.
  500
  All the relevant factors must be taken into account by the Secretary of State, just as the commission must take a range of relevant factors into account. A decision will not simply be reached on the grounds of public order.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: Can the Minister tell us whether members of the commission would be in attendance at a controversial parade to try to sort things out if something went wrong?
  Mr. Ingram: It depends on the nature of the parade and what is happening round about it. We know that the commission is very much a hands-on one. It depends on the stage at which its members seek to participate—they may try to facilitate mediation or may adjudicate at a certain point. It would be wrong to speculate on whether the commission would be involved in particular parades. I know that commission members witnessed many parades last summer. If my memory serves me right, I understand that Alastair Graham was at Drumcree and obviously observed what happened. I do not know to what extent he continued to talk to people—that was a matter for him.
  Mr. Forsythe: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is a considerable difference between observing a parade and trouble, and trying to do something about it.
  Mr. Ingram: Absolutely. That is why I have said it depends on the point in a parade to which the hon. Gentleman's question refers. Well in advance of a parade there are obvious available points of engagement and discussion, where it is possible to facilitate mediation. At that stage, it is even possible that the commission could mediate, as the Bill empowers it to do.
  On the day of a parade, should there be a major public disorder problem—let us hope that that does not occur—the Chief Constable must make a decision. I would assume that the Parades Commission would be in attendance to witness the events and to learn from that experience. I am sure that its members would talk to many people on that day and afterwards to learn why their attempts to seek accommodation had not proved successful. They would have to learn from that, in the hope of building on that experience when dealing with other parades that immediately followed or those that were held in the months and years ahead.
  The approach that I have set out and powers in the Bill are recommended by the North report. We all hope that those powers would not need to be exercised. By their very nature, they are the powers of last resort. The best interests of the community are served not by exercising banning powers or by the Chief Constable exercising powers on the grounds of public order, but by both sides in a dispute engaging in a dialogue, through mediation if necessary, to seek an accommodation with which both can live.
  We all hope that a new mood will prevail in Northern Ireland, fostered in an atmosphere of peace, where agreement is currently being sought by the parties taking part in the multi-party talks. We hope that that will encourage both sides to seek accommodation and to avoid conflict across the range of areas that have been disputatious in Northern Ireland in the past.
  Mr. Trimble: The Minister referred to the political talks that are proceeding and the possibility—indeed, the

  501
  hope that many people have—that those talks will produce an agreement. I am sure that he will agree that the most important issue facing Northern Ireland is that there is an agreement.
  In the event of that agreement including matters that touch on the Bill, will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will ensure that that is implemented and carried into legislation as quickly as possible? The Minister stood at the Dispatch Box on Monday night when we were discussing the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and said that if the inter-party talks brought forward any matters that touched on the structures of the police, he would ensure that they were brought forward during the passage of that Bill. Will he give the same undertaking with regard to today's Bill? It is possible that the agreement of the inter-party talks could touch significantly on the Bill.
  Mr. Ingram: I am being asked to speculate into the unknown—
  Mr. Trimble: It is not unknown.
  Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman should let me explain my point. If he is not happy with my explanation, he can come back to me, but he should let me explain in my way and not make his judgment before I have got more than two words out of my mouth.
  The hon. Gentleman was asking me to speculate on what could come out of an agreement following the talks. Assuming that the current timetable is held to, the time scale could be May of next year. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, well in advance of that, we hope to have the Parades Commission up and functioning and to have the Bill on the statute book so that the commission can be properly constituted. We want it to be able to operate well in advance of the forthcoming marching season.
  If anything by way of an agreement comes out of the joint talks and impinges on the Bill or any other piece of legislation, clearly the Government will have to take cognisance of that. If all the parties participating in the talks want something to happen which has the support of the people of Northern Ireland, it behoves the Government to take full account of that.
  Mr. Trimble: The situation may arise in a slightly different way from that anticipated by the Minister. An agreement in the talks may be held up, or may not be achievable, without changes to the legislation. Should that situation arise, I hope that the Minister will act with the same promptness as he promised on Monday night with regard to the police legislation.
  Mr. Ingram: Promptness in terms of my actions may be easy to deliver, but we have to consider the business of the House over which I do not have control and which is a matter for others.
  All of us will be fully conscious of the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point—if there is a major point of contention and a lasting peaceful settlement could be held up on the basis of an amendment to a piece of legislation, I am sure that there will be urgent talks with all the constitutional parties to ascertain the best way forward.
  502
  It depends on what sort of change is required; it may or may not require primary legislation; it may or may not require a significant amount of time in the House. We could speculate all evening on various scenarios, but I do not think that it would take the debate much further forward.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the Minister, particularly as he has given way three times on this point, which is unusual. When the Minister replied, there was a smile on his face as though he thought he was dealing with an unusual scenario. When the Minister considers that this Bill is the most serious and substantial assault on the civil rights of the people of Northern Ireland this century, he must realise that this is not a light matter.
  In relation to the inter-party talks and the future of Northern Ireland, the issue is of major importance and it will be very much in the minds of those engaged in the talks. It is hypothetical because we may not arrive at an agreement during those talks, but I can assure the Minister that the matter will be considered in that context.
  Mr. Ingram: That is helpful to know. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not a participant in the talks proceedings, so I do not know whether the matter has been raised in any of the bilateral meetings or plenary sessions, but I shall certainly find out whether that is the case.
  If the hon. Gentleman has a strong view on that matter and if he pursues it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my fellow Minister of State, who have direct responsibility in that area, I am sure that he will get an answer to a specific question rather than a hypothetical question. I suggest that, when trying to move forward the talks process, it is better that we deal with specifics, rather than with unspecified or hypothetical generalities.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has raised a point which is important to him and about which his community feels strongly. I have a question vis-a-vis my hon. Friend's remarks on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and other matters: if an agreement is contingent on alterations to the Bill, does the alteration take place before the agreement is agreed, or is the agreement going to be made subject to alterations in the Bill—that is, there will be no change in the status quo before the agreement is made and, if no agreement is made, the status quo has already been altered?
  Mr. Ingram: This is becoming rather like a philosophy debate. I am not belittling it—I understand the depth of the point being raised—but we are dealing with the Second Reading of a Bill, and the Government are determined to proceed on course with the Bill. The eventualities that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) are, in a sense, not yet on the table for discussion.
  We can deal only with matters that exist and not with those that are hypothetical. If they become reality and affect the status quo or the proceedings of the Bill in Committee and on Report, those matters will have to be taken into account. However, they will not be taken into account because of pressure from one particular party or

  503
  an individual Member of Parliament. If I understand the hon. Member for Upper Bann correctly, they will arise from an agreed position that the House will be asked to consider. We can then proceed to give these matters our consideration at that stage.
  Before those numerous interventions, I was setting out what all of us hope will prevail in Northern Ireland—a new future, fostered in an atmosphere of peace in which agreement can be reached. It is encouraging to hear the hon. Member for Upper Bann talking in those terms; all of us can take encouragement from that. He has made a major contribution throughout the talks process, and I know that he will continue to do so.
  I hope that I have clearly set out the reasons why the Bill is needed. Last Saturday's events in Derry have shown that violent disturbances do not occur only at the height of the marching season, in the heat of summer; they can flare up wherever there are people intent on creating mayhem and riot and where there is an unwillingness to reach accommodation.
  The use or the threat of force has been a blight on society in Northern Ireland for many years. The way in which the law has been structured to deal with disputes over parades has in recent years encouraged those who would use or threaten force. That is surely wrong. The rule of law must be paramount at all times.
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Further to that point, is the Minister aware that three of the leading spokesmen for the so-called residents groups—Dounacha MacNellis of the Bogside Residents Group, Brendan McKenna of the Garvachy Road Residents Coalition and Gerard Rice of the Lower Ormeau Concerned Community—have convictions for terrorist offences? Does not that underline the reality that what the Minister describes as the "flaring up" of protests and opposition parades is actually carefully orchestrated by Sinn Fein-IRA? The evidence for that is the fact that those three leading spokesmen have all been convicted of IRA membership in the past.
  Mr. Ingram: I dealt with that issue in some detail during Monday night's debate on the police legislation. I know that the hon. Gentleman was present for only part of that debate, so he might have missed the views I expressed then.
  The debate is not well served by attributing blame to only one side. We must be realistic when dealing with the issues that we face in Northern Ireland. There are many players in the outbreaks of public disorder. That is what puts pressure on the Chief Constable; it is what has put pressure on previous Secretaries of State when coming to their determinations as to whether parades should or should not be allowed to proceed.
  The rule of law must be paramount at all times. It is the bedrock of any civilised society. Those who seek to overturn the rule of law must be discouraged from doing so, and punished if they still proceed. The Bill is designed to aid those who seek to uphold the rule of law. It is designed to operate in a way that is fair and reasonable, and which embraces common sense. Those principles underlie everything the Government are trying to do in Northern Ireland. I hope that every Member of the House who values those principles will support us.
  No law is perfect; no new structures are without problems or flaws. However, without the support of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland,
  504
  whatever legislation is enacted or whatever structures are built will just not work. Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been dissipated over recent years in policing costs and clearing up the damage caused by those who do not respect the rule of law.
  Of course, there is much more than direct public expenditure at stake—who knows how many investment opportunities and possibilities for economic growth have been forgone over that period? The cost of the events this weekend in Derry alone are already estimated to be in the region of £5 million. To that can be added the tens of millions of pounds spent in the aftermath of Drumcree 1995, 1996 and 1997.
  The whole community pays the price; the whole community suffers. Thus, it is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, socially and economically, to see that disputes are resolved by accommodation, not conflict. I hope that the Bill will go some way to making that more possible in the future, and I commend it to the House.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: I thank the Minister for setting out the Government's objectives. As the Bill has been exhaustively debated in another place, and as a number of the Opposition's concerns have already been taken into account, I intend to keep my comments relatively brief. I should like, however, to record our thanks for the co-operative way in which the Minister in another place dealt with those concerns. I pay tribute, too, to my noble Friend Lord Cope for his efforts on behalf of the Opposition.
  It is probably true to say that marches, and the so-called marching season, in Northern Ireland are one of the aspects of society there which the public in Great Britain find the most difficult to understand: they find the whole thing baffling. They watch with amazement marches commemorating events of 100, 200 or even 300 years ago. On the whole, they find the whole thing unnecessary and provocative.
  Rarely do the people of Great Britain try to understand, in short, why their fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland see the necessity to march. That view is born of the luxury of security: we are secure in our ability to express our cultural traditions, secure in our national identity, and secure in our ultimate constitutional status.
  The House cannot simply dismiss the marches in Northern Ireland, however. Above all, we have a duty to understand their significance to a great many people there. That is not just because of the contentious nature of some of the marches, or because a small minority of them are attended by public order problems—as witnessed in Londonderry last weekend. The reasons go much deeper than that, because to understand the numerous parades and processions that take place every year, and to understand why they do, is to come close to a proper understanding of the nature of the problems of Northern Ireland. I shall develop that point briefly.
  Parades and processions provide us, in effect, with a microcosm of the historic struggle between Unionism and nationalism—not just over the past 28 years, during the current troubles, but over the centuries, ever since the titanic religious and constitutional struggles of the 17th century. They are about displays of identity. They are about defiance—a siege mentality on both sides,

  505
  which has yet to be resolved. Above all, they are about territory—the mosaic of settlement—on what is described as the "narrow ground", which has done so much to forge the patterns of conflict that have characterised almost every stage of the so-called Ulster crisis.
  When violence erupts, it is a reminder to us all of the real tensions and insecurities that are constantly there below the surface of society in Northern Ireland. Only when the ancient insecurities are lifted and a new accommodation between the two divisions in Northern Ireland has been forged, will the parades and processions take on the form that everyone in the House and elsewhere desires: displays of cultural traditions that can be respected, and even enjoyed, by all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. That is what the current talks process is all about, so we wish it well.
  However, the immediate background to the Bill is one of the ugliest manifestations of the divisions in Northern Ireland: the violently disputed march, every July, at Drumcree in the constituency of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), and the subsequent stand-off and violence.
  Drumcree is only an example of the increasing number of disputed parades throughout the Province. There are several others. The Orange and Black Preceptory parades on the Ormeau road in Belfast, the Apprentice Boys annual parade in Derry and the Orange parade in Magherafelt in County Tyrone are a few examples.
  However, undoubtedly Drumcree has encapsulated the difficulties of the parades issue. Drumcree was the catalyst for the previous Conservative Government to establish the North review, to consider the issue of parades in Northern Ireland and to recommend ways in which they might be handled in future. I should like to place on the record once again our gratitude to the North review and to associate the official Opposition with the broad thrust of its conclusions.
  Two principles guided our approach to the issue of parades when we were in government, and they continue to guide us now. First, let me be unequivocal. The official Opposition support the rights of organisations to hold parades in Northern Ireland. On both sides of the community, they are perfectly legitimate, not to say colourful, means of cultural expression. They are, within the law, an integral part of a free society.
  Let no one forget that the vast majority of marches in Northern Ireland pass off peacefully. In many cases, they date back centuries. The Orange Order has been around since 1795, the Apprentice Boys since the 1820s. The Ancient Order of Hibernians has a lengthy history.
  Many of the marches have been held along the same routes since the organisations were founded. However, in some cases the demography of the routes that have been marched has changed considerably, not least in the past 20 years and as a result of the troubles.
  For example, 20 years ago the Lower Ormeau road was predominantly Protestant. It is now a very strongly republican area yet, not unnaturally, the Orange Order wishes to continue to parade along the route that it regards as traditional. That presents us with very difficult problems and the potential for public disorder.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned my constituency, I felt that I should comment.
  506
  He may have made a slip of the tongue when he spoke about a disputed parade in Magherafelt in County Tyrone. I think it would have been Bellaghy in County Londonderry, because I am not aware of Magherafelt being in County Tyrone.
  Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it is not a question of simply retaining a traditional route on the Ormeau road? It is the main route on which people walk, day in, day out, to their business places, and it links Ballynafeigh and Donegal] Pass, which are two Protestant areas.
  Mr. MacKay: I confirm that and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for the slip of the tongue in saying Tyrone, not Londonderry. I am grateful.
  Coupled with the right to march are the rights of residents of a different tradition who object—sometimes violently—to what they regard as triumphalism and intimidation or, in effect, an invasion of territory that they regard as their own.
  I understand the suspicion of some hon. Members—especially from Northern Ireland—about the nature of many of the residents associations that seem to have proliferated in recent years and the fact that many of them appear to be manipulated by Sinn Fein-IRA, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) well illustrated in an intervention, but residents' rights must be respected.
  Today we are trying to strike a balance between those two elements: the right to march and the rights of residents, which are at the heart of the struggle at Drumcree. They are at the heart of the Bill.
  If parades are a microcosm of the problems in Northern Ireland, Drumcree is a microcosm of the parades issue. For the best part of two centuries, the Orange Order has sought to walk from the Protestant church at Drumcree along a route that takes it along the Garvaghy road, through a strongly republican area. As the Minister said, in each of the past three years the marchers have been resisted by violent protesters. Serious breaches of the peace, including loss of life, have probably been averted only by the resolution of the security forces. I utterly condemn those who have resorted to violence or broken the law on such occasions.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as has been said, the Garvaghy road and the Ormeau road are not roads passing through residential areas, but main arterial roads? Is he further aware that there is little, if any, evidence that parades passing those points in approximately 20 minutes annually are likely to give rise to any reasonable cause of fear, threat or intimidation to residents adjoining those main arterial routes?
  Mr. MacKay: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that they adjoin. I do not want to go into details; I believe that the Minister was correct in saying that that would not be helpful this afternoon. In the case of the Garvaghy road, that main road passes down one side of a nationalist housing estate and causes offence; that is beyond dispute. Whether that should be of overwhelming

  507
  influence is entirely another matter and no doubt an argument that the hon. and learned Gentleman will wish to develop in his speech.
  Mr. McCartney rose—
  Mr. Trimble rose—
  Mr. MacKay: I give way to the hon. Gentleman whose constituency I am talking about at some length.
  Mr. Trimble: Something has always fascinated me about the Drumcree church parade and its return down the main road into Portadown. As has been said, along the Garvaghy road, the estates are set back some distance from the road, but along the Drumcree road before its junction with the Garvaghy road, the estate borders the road, and there has never been trouble at that point. There has never, to my knowledge, on the five occasions on which I have walked there, been any sign of residents being annoyed or upset by the parade there, but on turning the corner into the Garvaghy road, one finds that people have come out of the estates and congregated at points some distance from the housing, for the purpose of trying to attack those who are walking home from church. The geography is more complex, but I draw attention to the fact that there are no protests at the point where the estate borders the route that is walked.
  Mr. MacKay: That was an extremely important and helpful intervention. I, and I hope other hon. Members, will not want to second-guess the hon. Gentleman on the geography of his constituency, and will want to take careful note of his first-hand observations of marches over a number of years. He might wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to pursue those matters further in due course.
  I return to the subject of the violence. I repeat that the Opposition, and I am sure the Government, utterly condemn those who have resorted to violence or who break the law on such occasions. In many cases, the violence has been premeditated and very carefully orchestrated. I pay tribute to those who have sought to defuse community tensions at marches throughout Northern Ireland and who have been prepared to compromise, particularly last summer.
  I commend the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported by the Army, on the professionalism and impartiality that they displayed at Drumcree in the face of appalling provocation from both sides. I agree with the Chief Constable of the RUC, who complained that, year after year, the RUC has been put in the middle, which is an impossible situation for the police force. The RUC has endured much unjustified criticism of how the parade at Drumcree and other parades throughout Northern Ireland have been policed. On behalf of the Opposition, I reject that criticism entirely. The Chief Constable had to make difficult judgments on the ground in an unbelievably tense situation. It does not behove Members of Parliament, particularly those whose constituencies the marches do not go through, to second-guess the Chief Constable, whose main duty is to maintain law and order and to minimise the risk of loss of life.
  In Londonderry last week, we saw the position in which the police have continually found themselves. The RUC deserves not our condemnation but our whole-hearted
  508
  support. I agree that the RUC, especially the Chief Constable, has been placed in a no-win situation. Whatever he does or decides, he will be criticised by one side or the other, which is one reason why I believe that this legislation is necessary.
  The struggle at Drumcree has gone down in folklore on both sides. One of the Bill's key objectives is to avoid confrontation at that parade and at others throughout Northern Ireland in the future. We support that, as we do the establishment of the Parades Commission. We wish Alastair Graham and his team well in their efforts to reach peaceful resolutions, on the basis of consensus, to the difficulties that might arise. We do not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead. The Opposition recognise that some of the Parades Commission's adjudications will be controversial and might go against the wishes of one side or the other. However, I hope that all parties and all sections of the community will approach its work in a constructive and co-operative manner.
  When the Government introduced the Bill, we had many concerns, which were widely shared in the other place. A number of them have now been satisfactorily resolved. The Government agreed to strike out one of the main clauses—clause 3—rewrite six of the other 18 clauses and two of the three schedules, and alter the short and long titles. I shall not rehearse again the arguments that were used in the other place other than to comment in passing on the remarkable degree of consensus there. That was particularly the case on clause 3, which has now been struck out of the Bill, together with all references to it. We very much welcome that.
  In its original form, clause 3 would have enabled the commission to consider all kinds of outdoor expressions of cultural identity, such as church services and gable ends, although not offensive sporting occasions. Now the Bill deals only with processions such as parades and protests, which is how it should be. As my noble Friend Lord Cope said in another place, the Secretary of State's powers to ban parades and protests are not made any easier by the Bill, as the threshold has been increased to "serious public disorder" and "serious damage to property".
  The penalties for parade organisers when parades go wrong are no longer four times as much as for those who set out to break up parades. The same penalties will be available for organisers of, or participants in, an illegal parade held without notice as are available for the organisers of, or participants in, a legal parade that goes wrong in some way. Previously, the penalties were much stiffer for legal parade organisers and participants, which cannot be what the Minister intended.
  The Government will also use the old definition of processions, which includes cavalcades of cars or vehicle processions.
  In short, we now have a much fairer and more balanced Bill, which is likely to be more effective and, although it does not provide all the answers to the parades issue, it is workable. Importantly, the Bill as now constituted is not the anti-parades Bill demanded by some, which is not to say that the Opposition parties will not want to look closely at the detail in Committee to see whether there is scope for establishing common ground, to improve the Bill still further. As it stands, however, and as a result of the changes already accepted by the Government, we intend to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: The Bill is a sad reflection of the inability of communities in Northern Ireland to come to terms with and accept the diversity of political, cultural and religious beliefs and aspirations. The Bill and other Bills of this nature are a poor substitute for the good will and tolerance that should exist in any community. People should not only accept the differences and diversity that exist within communities but desist from acts that infringe the rights and even the sensitivities of others. If true tolerance existed, the confrontational problems in Northern Ireland could and would be resolved locally and amicably. The problem would not have to be addressed by a Bill which, even with the best will in the world, is a blunt and clumsy instrument to deal with the failure of human relationships.
  Many people will argue and try to convince us that all Orange parades, Black Preceptory parades and Apprentice Boys parades are mere expressions of religious culture. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said that they were expressions of political and other beliefs, rather than simply religious, as we are led to believe. If the parades are somehow rooted in customary practice, they should be sacrosanct and inviolable, irrespective of the harm that some of them do to the community in terms of injury to people, destruction of property and damage to the reputation of Northern Ireland as a whole.
  Many parades are genuine in terms of their truly religious and otherwise innocent intent, but it must be said that some specific parades, while under the guise of religious occasions, are based totally on a display and assertion of dominance, superiority and subjugation. Primary among those must be the infamous parades at Drumcree in the past three years.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman claims that the walk to and from Drumcree parish church is for the purpose of intimidating people. I am sure that he is aware that the parade started in 1807, and until the last couple of decades, on its journey back into Portadown along the Garvaghy road, it did not pass by the housing of any person who would be upset by it. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that that church procession is for the purpose of intimidation, what on earth was happening from 1807 until just a couple of decades ago?
  Mr. McGrady: The hon. Gentleman, who is leader of the Ulster Unionist party, would have us believe that the Drumcree march is simply an expression of religious belief. In his earlier intervention on the hon. Member for Bracknell, he said that the local community lived some distance from the Garvaghy road, which would lead the House to believe that it was miles from the scene of events. Yet on the last occasion, because the march passed down the Garvaghy road, the people on that street could not attend their place of worship and had to perform that religious act of worship in the open air. So much for the lack of proximity.
  If the parade is truly a religious expression, the backdrop to it is anything but religious. Bulldozers were brought along and other unmentioned and unprovable events took place behind the scenes, threatening not only public order but the life and limb of entire communities. That is what we are dealing with. If it was genuinely
  510
  religious and not an expression of dominance and subjugation, why could not that march to Drumcree church, which was so graphically described by the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, have returned by the same route, without any hindrance? The alternative route by which the marchers came was available for them to go back. No amount of tradition—10, 50 or 200 years—can justify the expression of that so-called right at the expense of the consequences that follow.
  The decision to allow the Orange parade to march along the Garvaghy road was wrong in principle, and in terms of justice, law and order. No statement from the Secretary of State or the Chief Constable can justify that decision. By his own declaration at the time, to which the Minister referred in his introduction to the debate, the Chief Constable was saying that law enforcement could be based only on the principle of submission to the greater evil. The evil to which he was referring was that of the loyalist and Orange violence against the nationalist community at Garvaghy road.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the confrontations at Drumcree of which he complains were really occasioned by protests against a lawful parade? It was the threat of intercommunity violence, not least by members of the nationalist community, that caused the interface in which the Chief Constable was placed in the odious position in which he found himself. To suggest that it was solely the responsibility of those who chose to parade along a route that they had taken for 200 years is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
  Mr. McGrady: I cannot say that I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention, but I shall deal with the facts that he has given. Let me put the situation to the House in a different context. If the march is not a triumphalist and subjugatory expression, why are medals struck in the subsequent couple of months each year to commemorate the event—to commemorate the daring and courage of those who march down the Garvaghy road? For all I know, a bar could have been struck for the medal last summer. Is that an expression of religious tolerance? The facts are different. The intent was to intimidate, and intimidation took place.
  I referred to the Chief Constable saying that law enforcement must be based on the principle of submission to the greater evil. The Chief Constable specifically sent the security forces into the estates on the Garvaghy road to confine members of the nationalist community. That decision was based on the distorted argument that, as he said, he was protecting their lives from the greater evil—his words, not mine. The Secretary of State fully endorsed that decision, and added the abysmally weak rider that she hoped that as a consequence the Orange Order would be "generous".
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McGrady: I have given way quite enough; I want to get on.
  Inexperience may be an excuse, but lack of principle in high position is never an excuse. The Secretary of State and the forces of law and order were not capable on those

  511
  occasions—July 1995, 1996 and 1997—of upholding and enforcing the rule of law or the principles of justice and equity. The subsequent debate has been clouded by the argument that it was a religious march and that the marchers were prevented from coming back from their church. I have already argued in response to a question that if community harmony, religious freedom and so on were at the heart of decision making, the parade could have returned without incident by the way that it had come to its church.
  Mr. Ingram: I appreciate the depth of feeling on the matter. If the decision had been taken to ban that parade, what is the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the potential state of public order thereafter? That is the judgment that the Chief Constable had to make, and that is why he used the language that he used. Did the hon. Gentleman want to see something worse visited on Northern Ireland?
  Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his intervention. Is he offering the same justification as the Chief Constable, that the greater evil is that which should prevail? That is the import of the hon. Gentleman's question. The answer to the question, "What would happen if" or, "What would happen if not" should be based on the common principles of law, justice and equality, rather than on who can mount the bigger force or threaten more violence.
  As other speakers have said, we must not play into the hands of those who orchestrate violence in the pretence of making a protest—the so-called defenders of the nationalist communities, who simply perpetrate their violence also on the nationalist communities. There are some genuine community groups that are anxious to alleviate the problem and eradicate dissension, but there are other groups that are dominated by other agencies determined to exacerbate the violence and mayhem that occur. I hope that in future all those in the nationalist community will carefully consider their actions and not allow themselves to be used by the paramilitaries in that hypocritical and cynical way.
  Last week's events in Derry, which could be perceived as a precursor of today's debate, illustrate the enormity of the potential for a parade to destroy all the work that has been done to create a settled political climate, a more attractive economic environment and a better way of life. One afternoon's work, and it is all gone.
  We are tired in Northern Ireland. We are weary of events, and we are also very angry at the fact that in Derry, two relatively small sections of a large and tolerant community can bring such mayhem, destruction and economic damage to a great city within a few hours.
  In the six months from 1 April to 30 September this year, there were 2,687 parades in Northern Ireland. According to a parliamentary answer, it was judged that 2,401 of them were Orange and Unionist parades, and 286 were nationalist parades. Although it must be acknowledged that few of those parades give rise to problems, the sheer weight of repetition in every community of parade after parade exacerbates the position.
  Two factors could considerably alleviate the problem arising from the excess of parading. One is the voluntary restriction of the number of occasions on which marches are held. The second is the expression of greater tolerance
  512
  by the communities towards those who wish to march for whatever reason—religious or traditional—as long as it is innocent in intent. I think that the Bill attempts to address that point.
  I am not sure that now is the appropriate time to discuss the details of the Bill, but I wish to comment on some broad aspects of the legislation at this early stage. I shall do so not according to their importance but according to their sequential appearance in the Bill. I am concerned about clause 2(2)(a), which gives the commission power to mediate between parties. That clause is particularly worrying when one takes account of the power in clause 2(2)(b), which requires the commission to issue determinations in respect of parades.
  I suggest that it is not good practice for a body that is engaged in mediation to make decisions about parades also. The commission should certainly assist and facilitate mediation, but I do not believe that it should make determinations. I fear that that would compromise the commission's role and might lead to unnecessary confusion, unwarranted allegations and a diminution of regard for any final determination regarding a parade.
  A theme seems to run through clause 3, which deals with the code of conduct, clause 6, which deals with advance notice of parades, and other parts of the Bill. I shall refer to that specifically on another occasion. However, in almost every circumstance—whether it be determination of a parade, the conditions for a parade, the registration of bands or offences for interrupting parades—the Bill allows for power to filter back eventually to the Secretary of State or through the Chief Constable to the Secretary of State. As I said this morning, it looks as if one is keeping a dog and barking oneself.
  I thought that the Bill would provide for a commission that would take out of the political-security arena the decision making regarding parades. However, it seems to keep introducing that power into controversial areas. Almost every part of the Bill, including clauses 3 and 6, goes into some detail about referring power back to the Secretary of State.
  Clause 7(6)(e) refers to a matter that the commission must consider when determining whether a parade should go ahead and under what conditions. The clause refers to
  "the desirability of allowing a procession customarily held along a particular route to be held along that route."
  The vexing question of traditionality has been raised in the debate. I have an anecdote about my experience of traditionality. There were some problems with a small parade that was held in an area not far from my constituency—I shall not name it, as that would only exacerbate the situation. The parade caused some offence and residents went to the police to request assistance. The police said that they could not do anything about it, because it was a traditional parade.
  One would imagine that a traditional parade had some tradition. However, this parade took place on a new housing estate along a hammerhead cul-de-sac 150 yd long. It was a green-field site two years ago and there was no proper road, but the police allowed the parade to go ahead on the basis of traditionality. It devalues the concept of traditionality to allow parades to take place in local areas such as that.
  I thought that the underlying purpose of the Bill was to take away from the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable the decisions regarding parades and the

  513
  conditions attached thereto, yet every part of the Bill inexplicably pushes the problem back to them—I was looking forward to a more positive and dynamic new dimension.
  I have highlighted several concerns that large sections of the community in the north of Ireland have about some of the details of the proposed legislation. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will address my concerns about referral of powers to the Secretary of State and the Chief Constable and the suggestion about bringing the Police Authority on to the scene at some stage. Perhaps the Government will amend the Bill in Committee.
  It is important that we end the conflict about parades in Northern Ireland once and for all. I hope that the draft Bill will establish a really independent Parades Commission with determining powers on a statutory basis, in line with the North review. That would provide a possible vehicle for ending the bitter conflict that we have witnessed over so many years. On behalf of my party and all of those whom it represents, I wish the commission well in its very difficult task. I hope that that task will be made easier by the support and understanding that it will receive from the entire Northern Ireland community. My party supports the Bill.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. William Ross: This is a very important Bill and a very important debate—I am only sorry that so few hon. Members are in the Chamber to listen to and participate in it. That is partially the fault of those who scheduled the debate for a Thursday night just before Christmas—it should have been considered earlier in the week.
  Some of the Minister's opening remarks made me wonder exactly what he thinks is going on in Northern Ireland. I was particularly interested in his comment that many players are involved in parades. Perhaps he will tell us how many players were involved on Saturday and what interests they were pursuing. As he is clearly aware of the personalities and the backgrounds of the different players involved, he must have inquired of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as to who was protesting against, and participating in, the parades.
  There were certainly enough photographs taken and enough video cameras in the hands of the police and the security forces to allow identification of every known IRA player, terrorist, ex-terrorist, ex-thug and ex-murderer who has served a prison sentence and who was present on the streets of Dungiven, Bellaghy, Londonderry and many other places. Harryville had nothing to do with a parade: it was a protest outside a church—which I think that every hon. Member on the Unionist Benches would object to because we do not see what good it will do anyone.
  As the Minister obviously knows the IRA and Sinn Fein-related persons who were involved in those protests, will he give their names to the House or publish a list? I think that many people would be interested in that information. The Minister could publish their photographs if he has not managed to identify them. We shall get them identified because we know who those individuals are, and we know that some of them travel 30 or 40 miles to be intimidated and insulted at such gatherings.
  514
  It is interesting that the Minister refused to give way to me on the question of history. I thought that every hon. Member would acknowledge that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it endlessly. Yet a Minister of the Crown stood before us today saying, "No, no, no. I don't want to know where we have come from and I don't want to know how we got here." That seems to be a peculiar way for any Minister to proceed.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McCrady) cited some statistics today. I must confess that I have been trying to collect detailed statistics on parades and processions for some years—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have received mighty little help from the police or anyone else.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is sometimes confusing if two hon. Members seek to intervene at the same time. I ask the hon. Gentleman to make it clear to which hon. Gentleman he wishes to give way.
  Mr. Ross: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend accept that, of the 2,000 parades to which he has referred, about 400 or 500 are recorded on 12 July, and that they are duplicated in that one in the morning and one in the evening are counted as separate parades? It is exceedingly difficult to obtain accurate details from the authorities.
  Mr. Ross: That is the very point that I was making.
  I was given global figures for Northern Ireland. I attempted to ascertain the position in the police division which I represent for 1996. I discovered that, in that year, there were 267 parades that were tagged as loyalist, along with 34 of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, which was roughly 10 per cent. of the total. The Sinn Fein republicans' parades represented about 8 per cent. I assume that those parades were those of which the police were given due and timely notice. The Royal British Legion had 25, as did the youth organisations.
  I was astonished that youth organisations such as the Boys Brigade, the Girls Brigade, the Scout movement and other bodies, to name only the Protestant youth organisations, were able to reach a total of only 25. I thought that there was something wrong with the police statistics. I am sure that there are more than 25 such organisations.
  The various loyalist organisations reach a considerable total but it is not one that represents an overwhelming number of loyalist parades every day of the week, especially when many of the so-called Orange parades are merely band collection expeditions round the country. Those parades must amount to a large proportion of the total that we are discussing.
  It is necessary to understand the background to the parades and that which is being labelled as a parade, which are somewhat different concepts. With that understanding, a different picture begins to emerge.
  Given that I found it difficult to obtain accurate statistics, I asked the police for a more detailed breakdown. I was told in February that a new statistical

  515
  system, which would be able to provide a more detailed set of statistics, had been implemented from the beginning of 1997.
  As it happens, I tabled a parliamentary question at the end of July. I discovered from the answer that, until then, while there had been 1,576 loyalist parades and 254 others, only 114 nationalist parades took place. The hon. Member for South Down will appreciate that that was before 15 August, when a large proportion of the nationalist parades take place.
  Mr. McGrady: The figures that I quoted were those that were cited in response to my parliamentary question, which was answered on 14 November. The figures related to a period from 1 April 1997 to 30 September 1997.
  Mr. Ross: Yes, I read the question and the answer. The Minister received a letter from me in November in which I asked for a breakdown of the statistics. I hope that, sooner or later, he will be able to provide an answer, setting out what parades took place and what they were about. Were they church parades or collection parades? What were they? We must be aware of the detailed facts, because the devil is in the detail. We must have that information if we are fully to understand the situation.
  A lack of understanding is common on the part of those who are trying to ascertain the detail of what is going on in Northern Ireland. I recall clearly that, in 1985, shortly after the then Prime Minister signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, Baroness Thatcher, as she now is, said that she had signed it because something had to be done to stop the violence. Those words revealed a great void in her understanding of what was going on in Northern Ireland. That void remains unfilled to this day.
  Lack of understanding is perhaps a true cause of violence in Northern Ireland. Such understanding is blocked by a well-fertilised and impregnable hedge of misdirection and political malice, often created by the IRA's propaganda machine, helped by its fellow travellers on the road to the all-Ireland republic that they desire.
  The school of thought that produced the idea that something had to be done, without thinking through what that something should be—the reaction in 1985—is probably that which produced the foolish and ultimately dangerous Bill that we are discussing. I believe that the Bill will fail as the party procession legislation of the previous century failed.
  Mr. Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is for the parties on both sides of the divide to establish whether the intent behind the Bill will be successful?
  Mr. Ross: I shall detail the reasons why I take the view that I do before I conclude my speech. I ask the hon. Gentleman to restrain himself. I am aware that he has some knowledge of Northern Ireland, having grown up there. When I have finished, I think that he will understand the process of thought that has led me to my conclusions.
  It is a plain fact that IRA-Sinn Fein and their spiritual predecessors of whatever name have long hated every manifestation of the desire of the Unionist population in Northern Ireland to remain within this realm, governed as it is by a constitutional monarchy and Parliament. Their desire is for a republican form of government. I do not
  516
  know whether those on the Government Front Bench share that view but, given that those who occupy it have taken the oath or affirmation, I feel certain that they support the principle of constitutional monarchy.
  One of the most visible and potent symbols of the desire to remain within the kingdom has been the Orange order and its sister organisations, the Royal Black Institution and the Apprentice Boys. They were, and are, visible because their members and halls are present in almost every town, village and hamlet in Northern Ireland. As well, their major celebrations are large and colourful occasions.
  Those organisations are potent because their membership is large and much of it is active in the religious and political life of Northern Ireland. They are well recognised by Irish republicans as a bulwark of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. These republican organisations well understand that, if the loyalist orders could be destroyed, or at least weakened, one of the strongest webs which unites the Ulster Protestant population would be greatly diminished. If so, the cohesion and strength of the Unionist position would be correspondingly reduced.
  As that is so, the Ulster Protestant loyalist orders have long been a prime target for attack by violent republicanism, and non-violent republicanism tags cheerfully along because it shares the constitutional objectives of the gunmen and the bombers.
  People outside Northern Ireland do not know those things. They see only a group of people who want to go where others, claiming to be either residents, or representatives of the residents, do not want them. Most people in Great Britain cannot understand the underlying, carefully concealed purpose of the objectors and believe that the stated purpose is the real one.
  Sadly, some folk also believe the atrocious lie that the objections are spontaneous despite the fact that the leader of Sinn Fein, Mr. Adams, told his supporters that the preparations for the current confrontations took two years. It is only when we focus on the whole scene and place it in the context of the IRA assault on the constitutional position of Northern Ireland that events make sense. The long-term strategy set out by the IRA before violence was exploded in the late 1960s was that the campaign had to be a perfect blend of politics and violence.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, after the first IRA ceasefire on 31 August 1994, when the overt use of the bomb and the gun stopped, the IRA deliberately opened a second front, which consisted of civil unrest, attacks on parades and the spreading of violence among the community at large? As the hon. Gentleman has said, that has been publicly acknowledged by Mr. Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein-IRA, who has stated that that process did not happen accidentally but was the result of careful preparation over a period of years.
  Mr. Ross: That is the very point that I was trying to make, at somewhat lesser length than the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that he will expand on what he has just said if he is able to speak later in the debate.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he also agree that, alongside that, there has been a sustained campaign over the years to attempt to burn out every Orange hall in the country?
  Mr. Ross: I recall going to the General Synod of my church in May this year, when a great deal of hot air

  517
  was being expended on the attacks on Catholic churches, and on the foolish behaviour such as that in Harryville. I was able to point out that the statistics that I had compiled on those incidents show that the vast majority of the buildings that were suffering arson and bomb damage were Protestant owned, and that a large proportion—at least two thirds—of the churches that had suffered damage by bomb and arson were Protestant churches.
  In the 1960s, at first violence took centre stage. Politics publicly reared its head only on rare occasions, for example, when the IRA leadership was let out of prison and flown to London for consultations with the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now Lord Whitelaw. The political element next appeared with the articulation of the Armalite and ballot box strategy, which eventually led to the ceasefires, as part of the progression of that strategy.
  I should point out how careful the IRA has always been in the words that it uses, for the term "complete cessation of military operations"—that gets at what the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was saying—does not imply that it is the end of what it calls its war against the British state. It was—and is—only a change of tactics within its broad strategy. It knew that its efforts to stop the processions would be resisted and create a volatile situation that would be certain to end in violence, and, of course, it was prepared to help that along with its organisation throughout the Province. The statistics of the burnings—the arson, the attacks on vehicles and so on—show that the number of incidents was always much, much higher in the areas with a high population of republicans and nationalists than it was in Protestant areas. Those statistics are available for anyone who wants them.
  Violence—any violence—is very damaging to Northern Ireland, and therefore is very much welcomed by those who are determined to end the existence of Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. In that context, I invite the House to look again at the events that took place in Londonderry last Saturday, and, indeed, at the problem that the Bill purports to resolve. That particular Apprentice Boys function goes back, I understand, to 1718—the first recorded occasion of the burning of Lundy—predating the formation of the Orange Order. It is probably the oldest such demonstration in Ireland. It is also a fact that, at one time, there were many similar commemorations in other towns and villages, which now survive in only a few locations, for example, Limavady, in my constituency, where the demonstration goes back a very long way; in Omagh, where I think it still takes place; and in Belfast, which is a relatively new demonstration.
  The closest parallel to this type of behaviour in Great Britain is the burning of Guy Fawkes in Lewes and a number of other places in Sussex. It is quite evident from what we have seen on our television screens that the violence in Londonderry was carefully planned. The police knew beforehand that there would be a riot and took precautions. They were then accused of a heavy-handed presence. We even had Mr. McGuinness—not the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), but the leader of Sinn Fein-IRA—in Londonderry saying that some would go considerably
  518
  further than that. We heard him saying, "It doesn't really take these lads very long to fill up a thousand petrol bombs." I have worked it out. It is nearly 400 gallons of petrol, at a pint a bottle. Who paid for the petrol? Where did they get it from? Did they just stop a tanker? It is not done in five minutes. It is not planned in five minutes. I do not think that printers or painters work on Saturday mornings, yet there was a big banner hanging over the Richmond centre, which the rioters had managed to invade, attacking the RUC. The police knew that there was going to be a riot, and they knew who was behind it.
  The violence that erupted in Londonderry last Saturday spread over most of the old commercial heart of the city. It was not confined to the very small area in which the parade was taking place. The parade through that part of the city would normally be over in about 20 or 25 minutes. The riot was not only vicious and sustained. It was very carefully directed at a number of carefully chosen targets, one of which was the Government, who were being sent a plain message about the capability of IRA-Sinn Fein to switch on the violence when they wish. There were also a number of subtexts about the Government's slowness to create the united Ireland that the IRA wants; the meeting with the Prime Minister and Sinn Fein last week; and IRA members in prison and what would be done for them. I notice that nine of them got out in the Irish Republic today.
  The second target was the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The banner displayed read, "Disband the RUC". The chants were not anti-Apprentice Boys. They were "SSRUC, SSRUC". There was an underlying demand for the police to stop all demonstrations by the loyal orders, or else, especially in the west bank in Londonderry.
  The third target was a message that was sent to the local business community: "Exert pressure to stop all demonstrations by those dedicated to the Union in this city or you will suffer." Finally, of course, there were the Apprentice Boys, who were being told that they would be allowed to do only what Sinn Fein-IRA would permit. That is a common theme throughout the affair, right across the country.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I think that he has left a further target off his list, and a further objective that Sinn Fein-IRA had in organising the riot in Londonderry at the weekend—the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his party. The hon. Member for Foyle had contributed significantly to the peaceful resolution of earlier difficulties about different parades in Londonderry, so Sinn Fein-IRA decided to create a problem, which had not been a problem hitherto, and to ensure that it was not resolved peacefully in order to damage the SDLP and its representative.
  Mr. Ross: I was going to draw a gentle veil over the hurt and damage done to the SDLP and principally to its leader. I was at a gathering at which he was present the day before, and at that time he was very upbeat about the possibility of the problems being resolved. His face was very much shoved into the mud by the IRA and the way in which it behaved in that city on that occasion.
  What is the end result of this? It is, of course, to get the Government, the police and the business community united yet again in their demand that the loyal orders talk directly to the IRA. We heard the same theme in the

  519
  opening speeches of today's debate. It runs through the proposed legislation from beginning to end. It runs through all the events leading up to it. It is a consequence of not understanding that this aspect of the multi-faceted reign of terror that we have lived with is but a tactic in one battle in a terrorist war to remove Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom.
  When Ministers point us in that direction, whether they know it or not, they are informing Sinn Fein-IRA that the Government are relinquishing control of the streets to the terrorists' demands. I know that the Government will deny that—they always do—but I have set out the practical working out of following the path laid out in the Bill. If only the Government would look with care at the real reason for the terrorist assault, they would see that it is all about sovereignty over the territory of Northern Ireland. It is not about rights. It is not about jobs. It is not about parades or religion. It is about which nation governs and controls the six counties of Northern Ireland.
  It is for that reason that the noble Lord Fitt was wrong when, referring to the 1966 riots in the Falls road, he described the Irish tricolour as a cultural symbol of the individual who was displaying it. It is not a cultural symbol in that context. It is a national flag and it is flown by republicans in Northern Ireland as a territorial claim—a fact to which members of both Front-Bench teams have consistently and assiduously closed their eyes.
  This, I say again, is foolish and dangerous legislation. It is built upon deceiving words and the misconceptions taken up by Governments—this one and previous ones—as truth. It creates another factory of grievances in Northern Ireland. It will cause far greater mischief than at present exists in the whole area.
  I have to tell the Government plainly that there are not just a few contentious parades. There are as many contentious parades as the IRA wants to create, and it will create as many, in as many places, as suits its purpose at a given time in a given year.
  The best, perhaps the only solution—I put it in the broadest terms—is to put all existing processions through and look with care at new creations. If the Government do so with firmness, in a few years they will have created a situation in which processions will again be able to proceed in peace. In contrast, the Bill can ensure only that the number of violent incidents will increase year by year.
  I have sat for longer than anyone else from Northern Ireland on the Unionist Benches, and I have lived in Northern Ireland all my life. The first contentious parade that I saw was on coronation day in 1953 in Dungiven when the IRA took over a large chunk of that town and set up its field kitchens to feed its followers and pressurise the local Roman Catholic population into supporting it, all because a local band was to lead the children in their fancy dress parade. I was 17 at the time. When I speak in the House on these matters, I speak with a background of knowledge and a depth of experience that no one on either Front Bench can even begin to comprehend, never mind match.
  5.41 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. I follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) by saying that it is important that all hon. Members, particularly new Members, should comprehend and
  520
  understand the situation in Northern Ireland. It is perhaps unusual for a London Member of Parliament to speak in such a debate, but some 600,000 Londoners are of Irish descent. According to the 1990–91 census, 214,000 were born in the Republic of Ireland and 42,000 in Northern Ireland.
  My second reason for wishing to speak in the debate is that I was privileged to serve on an all-party group which visited Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland last week to understand—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for East Londonderry—Northern Ireland's multi-faceted society. I particularly thank all those whom we met in our attempt to understand the background to the talks process. We met politicians, RUC representatives, business people, people from the community and representatives of civil society.
  In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), and the Secretary of State, who helped to set up the arrangements. We had an interesting stop-over in an excellent fast-food restaurant in Newry on the way from Belfast down to Dublin.
  It is important to reflect that the work that we were learning about was cross-party, going back to previous Governments. I pay tribute to the work of Sir Patrick Mayhew, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. All hon. Members should understand and comprehend the situation in Northern Ireland. Autumn 1997 in the House has been dominated by Northern Ireland, and rightly so. It is the key issue of the hour. The issues that we debate were referred to by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)—fairness, justice and equality.
  Five measures have emerged during the past few months. First, the employment equality review of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was completed this summer and made more than 160 recommendations. I look forward to the full paper in the new year, as I am sure do other hon. Members.
  Secondly, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill was fully debated into the early hours of the morning in Committee and, as a member of that Committee, I started to comprehend Northern Ireland's multi-faceted society.
  Thirdly, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, which received its Second Reading earlier this week, will improve the effectiveness and accountability of the police in Northern Ireland.
  Fourthly, a White Paper has been published on the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law. For the first time, that establishes fundamental human rights guarantees for all people in Northern Ireland and Britain.
  The fifth measure is the Bill that we are debating today, which encourages accommodation over disputed parades and, where that fails, empowers an independent commission to determine whether and how a parade should go ahead. That follows the recommendations of the North report.
  I pay tribute to the work done by my noble Friend Lord Dubs, with other Members of the other place, in achieving a consensus, certainly between the Opposition and the

  521
  Government, although we have heard this evening that that consensus did not extend to all parties. The removal of clause 3, the equalisation of penalties and the reintroduction of the word "serious" into clause 10 were supported by all parties in the other place.
  I reiterate what has been said by the hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). The vast proportion of the marches pass off without any problem. Of nearly 3,000 in 1996, only 15 had problems. Of a similar number in 1997, again few had problems.
  Like all hon. Members here, I am obviously concerned about the troubles in Londonderry, or Derry, last weekend. I hope that such problems would have been avoided had the commission been in place. I note the £5 million cost of those troubles and I hope that the business community, representatives of which I met last week, will regard it as an aberration and continue their investment in Northern Ireland, which has tremendous opportunities for the business community. I note the comments of the hon. Member for South Down condemning all those involved.
  The all-party group met a number of people last week and I felt that there was strong hope for a better future for Northern Ireland. We should not forget the past but we should work towards a vision for the future.
  The highlight of the days that I spent in Northern Ireland was a meeting with women's groups, set up by Lady Mayhew, to whose continued interest in Northern Ireland I pay tribute. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) put a slightly different slant on those discussions. To put the record straight, the women's groups there were very much in favour of additional child care and training for single parents to enable them to return to work.
  Mr. Öpik: Might not it be imprudent for the hon. Gentleman to pursue that particular track, given that it has been extensively debated within the Chamber and outside?
  Mr. Colman: Having spoken to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I understand that he is happy for me to bring the matter up, as he also wishes that the House should not be misinformed of the nature of that meeting.
  I was about to talk about what to me was perhaps the defining moment when we met that group of people—an eloquent presentation by May Blood of the Greater Shankill area partnership board and Geraldine O'Regan of the Upper Springfield development trust. They were working together on their joint application for European Union urban funds and the European peace and reconciliation moneys that are available.
  I believe that the work that those women are carrying out is apposite as an example of what we can learn from. Many good things are happening in Northern Ireland, such as the work on the early years programme and the training for life project. Those are activities that we can learn from, adopt and carry forward in the rest of the UK.
  Hon. Members might ask what that has to do with the Bill. I noticed that all the communities that we met wanted peace—not peace at any price, but peace on the basis of fairness, justice and equality. I believe that the Bill is a further step towards that achievement.
  5.49 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a vital debate for the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Alas, many people have not been prepared to study the situation. I deeply resent the falsehood that the Minister put into my mouth. I did not ask him to go down the road of history, but I asked him to look at the history of the legislation before us.
  We had better get the facts of the matter straight. Today at the Dispatch Box, the Minister seemed unaware that something had happened on this date some time ago—a disaster for democracy, when an attempt was made by the Conservative Government to thrust down the throats of the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland an Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  That agreement was never made the law of this country, but now I notice that in the talks Bertie Ahern wants it to be made the law of this country by doctoring the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and bringing it in as part of that. Of course that is an outrageous suggestion, totally unacceptable to the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland.
  The Anglo-Irish Agreement was thrust upon the people of Northern Ireland and rushed through the House. It was to be the panacea for all the evils in Northern Ireland. How foolish those people, even Lady Thatcher who was one of its sponsors, appear in the aftermath of what took place.
  We are in an aftermath now. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has left the Chamber—oh no, there he is on the Back Bench. Perhaps he might take notice of some of the things I am saying, if he had time even to listen to my speech. He should go back and study the public order order and realise that it makes criminal in Northern Ireland what is not a crime here. Let us get it straight. The actions that the order legislates against and makes crimes, would be law-abiding actions by the citizens of any other part of the United Kingdom.
  Some of the matters of which we now face the aftermath arose because of the influence of Mr. Lenahan and the Anglo-Irish conference, which decided that there must be a public order order to deal with everything connected with processions and protests. What did they do? They closed their eyes to the most important facet of the parade system—traditional parades.
  The House may not know this, but traditional parades are both Unionist and nationalist, both Orange and republican. In my constituency, the Hibernians march through prominent Protestant areas on the day of their celebration. The same happens in other constituencies.
  Although the Hibernians go through what hon. Members might describe in the House as "bigoted Orange areas", the Orangemen do not lift a finger to them; indeed, many stand and watch them go by. In the past, before the House started to institutionalise the divisions in our country, it was well known that the bandmaster trained both bands. He would visit one hall one week and the other hall the other week—the Hibernian and the Orange. It may come as a great surprise to learn that even the drums were loaned by each band for particular celebrations.
  We need to establish the facts of the matter, and say what the Government did to please the Irish Republic. I found it amusing to hear the Tory party spokesman,

  523
  the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), saying some of the things he said today. I wish that he had said those things in earlier days, instead of backing his Government and giving them his nod of assent.
  Everybody in the House to whom I have listened has said, "Yes, there are traditional parades, and they cause no trouble." The traditional parades of the Hibernians go through Orange areas, and nothing is done. Great pressure has been put on me as a Member of Parliament to say that we should stop those parades and give them the same sauce as they give us.
  I have made it clear publicly that I shall do no such thing. I believe in civil and religious liberty for all men, and those people are entitled to go along a route that they have passed along for years. As has been said, some of the parades pass by in 10 to 15 minutes.
  However, the IRA grasped the fact that the public order order was up its street, and immediately decided to attack traditional parades. The House does not need to take my word for it. In a well—publicised RTE programme Gerry Adams admitted that it had taken three years of preparation and planning to organise and orchestrate the anti-parade feeling, which he said is going to be exploited to the advantage of the Provisional IRA.
  By passing the legislation, the House is helping Adams on in his work, for nobody believes that the Bill will end the problems of parades; I noticed that not even Ministers were confident about that. Some hon. Members have asked where the strength of the Chief Constable now resides with regard to the parades, and how much power he has over them.
  The IRA saw a weakness in the legislation, and said, "Right, we will concentrate on that." Of course, the IRA concentrated on the areas in which it could best mobilise and, by propaganda, give a false impression to the world about what was happening.
  As for Drumcree, the propaganda that the world has listened to says that Orangemen deliberately walk through republican and nationalist housing estates. That has been said again and again, but it is untrue. I rather resent what the Minister said about Drumcree, because he did not go into the background.
  Why do the Orangemen go down that road? It is because of a brokered agreement with the police. I happened to be a party to the meetings, and the police decided that the Tunnel area of Portadown would be closed to Orangemen for all time, despite the fact that they had always walked that way. Because that was the way that the Orangemen walked from Drumcree, the police gave a promise that the other road would always be kept open to them, because it was an arterial road.
  The authorities gave the Orangemen that promise. Is it good reason or good sense that, without any consultation and with a heavy hand, the authorities should decide against what they had promised? If the boot was on the other foot and that had happened to nationalists, they would be here screaming, "Murder," and asking, "Why did you suddenly break your word?"
  We have heard a lot about the problems at Drumcree and we know there were problems—the people who live in Northern Ireland know that better than anyone in this House. However, the aftermath of Drumcree was not all Protestant or Orange violence, and the Minister should know that. He knows who made the initial attack on both occasions. It is unfair for the hon. Gentleman to say that we are all to blame.
  524
  I do not think that the Apprentice Boys in Londonderry were to blame for what happened there on Saturday. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) told us, and we should listen to what he has said, the slogans were not against the Apprentice Boys: they were all anti-police. We are told that this Bill will alter things. Even if it is enacted, it will not make any alteration.
  The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) told us in the debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill that doing away with the oath of allegiance for the police would make no difference and neither will it. The issue is that we have to face up to those elements who intend violence. This Bill is a charter that will assist them, and that is what worries the Unionists. This Bill will help them to make more trouble.
  When the Government issued the Bill, it was disastrous that they did not make the punishments for both offences equal. They should have been equal from the beginning. People are saying, "As a person thinks in his heart, so is he." When the Bill was first presented in another place—it was not a draft—why were the penalties for the crimes not considered equally?
  Furthermore, the person who breaks up a parade should have a heavier sentence than people who apply to walk legally and who are refused. The people who break up the parades institute the violence, and hon. Members ought to know that.
  I do not understand. Here we have a traditional parade that has gone down a road for 150 years. If the police tell people, "You're not going to walk that road again," and they attempt to walk it, they will get the same penalty as people gathering up 1,000 petrol bombs and throwing them at the police. If any penalty is to be more severe, it should be the penalty for those who take the law into their own hands and who attack the police who are doing their duty—even under this legislation.
  We must face up to reality when considering those issues. It is all very well saying that the police have been even-handed, but have they? It is all very well saying that the police should act in keeping with the law, but do they?
  As I have said, while I support the Royal Ulster Constabulary, I do not support every officer in it. Tonight, the Chief Constable has been eulogised here. I have already tabled my objections to him and put in an official complaint. I received a reply saying that the Chief Constable has full power to refuse a complaint against himself. That is something, is it not? I was told that my complaint would not proceed. The Chief Constable said that he would not allow it to do so.
  The Chief Constable, Ronnie Flanagan, told my friends and me deliberate falsehoods about what had happened at Dunloy, and completely misled us. When I took the only way open to me and put in a complaint against him, I discovered that he still had the power to say whether the complaint would be proceeded with, and he said that it would not be. What remedy do people have? That is why I welcomed the legislation to provide an ombudsman when we discussed the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. Then we can get to the point. Those matters deeply concern the people of Northern Ireland.
  When the situation arose in Harryville, which is part of my constituency, why were plenty of police not available to ensure that those people got to and from their place of worship? It is on the record that I did not support what was done there. My record stands on that and I want to

  525
  make that clear to the House. I do not believe in attacking people who are going to any place of worship by verbally abusing them or throwing stones at them.
  Mr. Godman: As an hon. Member speaking from the Government side of the House, may I say how pleased and grateful I am to the hon. Gentleman for his outright condemnation of those people at Harryville who seek to deter people from going to their church service?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Further up my constituency in Dunloy, the police presence was intended to keep Orangemen from worshipping in their own hall—not in a church. The police had banned the church. It had already been attacked. The windows had been smashed and the main burial plots rifled. The police told people that they could not walk there because there would be trouble and said, "They've done that to the church, what will they not do to you?"
  I do not know whether the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) knows this, but the Harryville Roman Catholic place of worship is what we would call a chapel in Northern Ireland. It is different in this country, where chapels are dissenting, nonconformist places of worship.
  Mr. Godman: And in Scotland.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, that is right.
  In Harryville, the Roman Catholic place of worship is in the midst of a 98 per cent. Protestant area and yet the police were able—and they were right—to say that people could go to their place of worship. However, the police then turned on people who had gathered to go to their own hall and, as a result, those people made scores of complaints to the police adjudication board about the way they were treated. What did the police do? They promoted the officer in charge, putting him in charge of all the complaints. That is the system that we are working against in Northern Ireland.
  A few weeks ago, after much discussion, in which I engaged, we were able to persuade the police to allow a religious service for the Apprentice Boys of Londonderry in the hall. However, when the police chiefs met me, they objected to the preacher the Apprentice Boys wanted—himself an Apprentice Boy—because they said that he might say things that republicans did not like. I said that that was getting into the very depths of intolerance, because a man is entitled to go to an Orange hall and speak his mind, and if he says anything contrary to the law there are authorities to deal with that.
  I told the police that they had no right to tell the Orangemen who should preach to them. They said that they did not want there to be a loudspeaker outside the hall, and I said that there would be a crowd in that small hall, so why could not the people in the grounds hear what was said? Eventually, they consented and we had the meeting. As a result, there is an easing of tension in Dunloy.
  I hope that that will be built on, and that the Orangemen will be permitted to go to their place of worship once a year. It is an Irish Presbyterian place of worship and the Moderator of the Irish Presbyterian Church put on record
  526
  the pressures that were on his people in that area. It used to be a flourishing church, but the Moderator said that now he did not need a full-time caretaker. When the caretaker had left, his house was not needed, so it was sold.
  On the radio in Northern Ireland, the Moderator said that people taunted his congregation as they arrived at church, saying, "We've got the sexton's house, we've got the caretaker away, your minister is now shared with another parish, and we'll get him and your church away." It is not an Orange church; we are talking about people going to an ordinary place of worship on a Sabbath day. The situation is totally unacceptable to the Protestant community.
  Dunloy is a little enclave of republicanism in the heartland of Protestantism, and the Protestants have tolerated that behaviour, largely because they have been exhorted by myself and others to bear with it until we get the matter settled. I have had no help whatever from the police authorities or from Ministers. I have never heard a Minister saying anything about Dunloy, but I heard the Secretary of State at his party conference talking about Harryville.
  It is time that we realised that there are two sides to the story. I have made it clear, in places where the message was not well received, that there is no justification for attacking anybody going to any place of worship. People are entitled to do that, and that must be declared strongly. I hope that Ministers will realise that there are people who do wrong in Northern Ireland and that they cannot simply say that we are all to blame.
  The vast majority of people in Londonderry were not to blame for Saturday. I talked to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) yesterday, and he was far from approving of what was done, because it was surely a setback to all his work. The incidents are a serious setback to all that we are trying to achieve. The peace and reconciliation money has been mentioned. That money would not have been there but for the hon. Member for Foyle, Jim Nicholson and myself: we got that money.
  We also encouraged the setting up of the partnership boards, as the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) knows, to ensure that the money is spent equally across the community. We are not dragging our feet, but the issues are fundamental and run to the very heart of the problem; they must be faced.
  Great praise has been given to the North commission, but it included two representatives, the Very Rev. John Dunlop and Father Crilly, who had already gone on the record as against parades. I cannot be expected, as a public representative, to swallow what they say. Why could not we have had a commission that everyone knew had not committed itself on anything? That is why there is opposition to the North commission and to the Bill.
  There will not be co-operation on the legislation, and it is a tragedy that we cannot come to grips with the matter. Public order legislation is inadequate. It is not very often that the majority of Unionists have gone to gaol on an issue, but we all went to gaol on the public order legislation, because we saw what was coming and that there would be opposition if traditional parades were interfered with.
  Ormeau road is a main arterial road into Belfast. I lived there, and my church is adjacent to the road. The street at the bottom of Ormeau road is called Cooke street after

  527
  the greatest son of Irish Presbyterianism, Henry Cooke. Off the road is what is known as the holy land, because the streets are named after places in Palestine, and that was a predominantly Protestant area, but the other side, from Hatfield street, was slowly and surely infiltrated from Cromac street, up the road. As a result, even the cricket ground was attacked.
  The Ormeau road is a main road that people go up and down, and what did the IRA-Sinn Fein man say? He said, "Never again will we allow a Protestant foot to walk on this road." That cannot be done in Northern Ireland. If a man said, "Never will I allow a Hibernian foot to walk on this road," the Hibernians would say, "Well, we'll show you."
  I raised the matter with the Prime Minister, and asked him what he intended to do, because the Orangemen are entitled to go to their place of worship and walk down the main thoroughfare. The IRA can hold its celebrations in front of the city hall in the very heart of Belfast. Not only that, but a councillor can bring three of them into the city hall and those men can go up on the roof and start to paint slogans, and then lay what was supposed to be a bomb, all wired up; it all happened.
  On the other side, the people sitting at the table who are supposed to represent the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force and other elements come down to the city hall and hold a meeting wearing the uniforms of outlawed organisations, and nothing is done. It will not be a surprise to see armed IRA men in uniform at the city hall. If the one side does it, so will the other. It is time to have a law that everyone must be made amenable to. That can be done only when the law is seen to be fair and to set out not to attack anybody, but to make people behave properly.
  Public order legislation is inadequate and must be replaced with more practical legal formulations. In particular, the law should be recast to reintroduce the protection for traditional parades. Parades that have gone ahead for 100 years on a public road should not be banned. Of course, no parade should go into a housing estate that opposes it, but we are talking about public roads. As was made clear earlier, there is only one point at which the housing by the Garvaghy road abuts on to the road, and at that point there is no opposition whatever.
  We should recognise the fundamental right to march, except where a march or parade is organised by or in support of an illegal organisation or for illegal or subversive activities. Those should be the criteria. People should not be allowed to hold a parade if it is in the interests of subversion or to support criminal activities. Those criteria must be introduced into the law. The right to march must not be hindered by those who oppose the marchers' identity and threaten public disorder.
  I received a telephone call from a police officer in a certain place in Northern Ireland. I shall not mention the area for I do not want to have any maligning of his name. He said, "If your people are not on the streets of this town on Sunday afternoon, the IRA will walk with their tricolours and all." I said, "So you are telling me that my people must risk engaging in lawlessness in order to keep the IRA off the streets. What are you doing about it?" He said, "Oh, there is no law now about traditional parades so I have to let it go." That is an impossible situation to put people into.
  528
  Protests must keep within the law and must not be allowed to hinder a lawful parade. It is possible to hold a legitimate protest without hindering a lawful parade. People in politics in Northern Ireland are well used to people opposing them and to hearing what they say. Moreover, church parades ought to be given sympathetic consideration. Most loyal order church parades are held to mark victories—not victories of 1690 but victories of modern times, in world war one and world war two in remembrance of honoured deaths. Church parades must be included.
  It is interesting to note what some people need to understand about the mentality of certain individuals who do not want parades. A most interesting book was published recently which I commend to the House. It is written by a Roman Catholic, Finnula O'Connor, and entitled "In Search of a State—Catholics in Northern Ireland". Everyone should read that book. The author found that many Catholics held an erroneous view about the Protestant community. She said:
  "The essence is a desire for supremacy, not accommodation".
  She confirmed that that was the public opinion made known to her. Later in her study she explains how many Catholics are sustained by the view that Protestants are bigots, saying, "We are not bigots, because we are not Protestants."
  Now we are getting to the real mentality of the people who went out and threw petrol bombs on Saturday and then said that they made them in five minutes. The hon. Member for East Londonderry told us how many gallons of petrol had had to be gathered up. They did not gather it up in five minutes.
  Finnula O'Connor says that Catholics
  "lovingly dwell on those Protestants who tell them that they covet the wealth of Irish traditional music and that they feel deprived of their heritage."
  She then quotes John Hume saying that Unionist paralysis is caused by
  "the siege mentality—inbuilt in what is a guilt complex and an inferiority complex."
  Such ill-informed views are widely and lovingly cherished by many Roman Catholic people about Protestants. Of course, there are those Protestants who have a completely wrong view of Roman Catholics and do not understand the situation of Roman Catholics.
  I am happy that, even though I am reckoned a bigot by some people, I sent my children to a mixed school so that they could bring their Roman Catholic fellow scholars home with them and we could meet them. The Roman Catholic children could find out that we had no horns or tails and that my wife could make a good Ulster fry that they could enjoy. The time has come when we must realise that there are many people who are suffering most, yet they are not guilty of anything.
  I heard the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman talking about the 12 July parades. I have taken part in processions on this side of the water in which there was good friendship and fellowship, even though too much liquor was consumed. Liquor seems to curse all parades. I am opposed to liquor drinking. I wish that the Government would say that on all parade days no liquor shops should be open. We would then have less nonsense. People get plied with drink. When John Barleycorn calls in, the whip is out and people get started.

  529
  There is a holiday spirit on 12 July. I hope that the hon. Member for Putney will accept my invitation to come over on 12 July and then on 15 August to see the Hibernians. Then perhaps he will have a different view. From dozens of Orange halls and community centres of one sort or another, bands can be heard practising for the big march. There are more bands per acre per head of the population in Ulster than in any other part of the kingdom, if not of the world. I want to tell the House that that is good musical talent. Some of the people, including the flautist, who is recognised as a great man across the world, learned to play in a kick-the-Pope band, as it is called in the Shankill road. Some people forget about their background and heritage.
  Until recently, the uniform for the parade was standard: the company director and the docker turned out alike. An umbrella was rolled up with meticulous care so that it looked almost like a sword and carried stiffly with military precision. Orangemen insisted that that was for the practical reason that, even in Ulster, sometimes it rains on 12 July.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry put his finger on the point. Why does the IRA hate the marches? It is because they are part of a bulwark that it must pull down if it is to succeed in its campaign to destroy the United Kingdom. Everyone knows that the Orange institution is linked to the Official Unionist party, but thousands of Democratic Unionists are members, and many hold office in its ranks. There are Labour men who are members.
  In fact, many Labour men in Scotland are Orangemen. When I came to the House, one of them came over to me and said, "I am the worshipful district master of a certain place. I am glad to meet you." He had a trade union badge on his breast and he suggested that we exchange badges. I gave him my badge and he gave me his. The Scotch people and the Liverpudlians perhaps might realise the situation better than some people.
  If we study history, we will find that British Government after British Government have decided that they can do something about parades. They have banned them and they have imprisoned people for taking part in them. They have introduced legislation and they have used the sword on them. Yet what has happened? People are still there and still marching. It would be far better for us to arrange measures tonight to enable people to march in peace and enable those who want to make their protest to realise that it must be made within the law. When that is established properly, people will have to live with a march passing for 10 minutes on a road.
  I wish that the disturbance lasted only 10 minutes in some cases in which I have been involved in my neighbourhood. Drinking clubs turn out at all hours of the night and there is vandalism after they close. The parades pass for only 10 minutes. I have been told that the whole of the Garvaghy road takes no more than 16 minutes.
  The Bill is not the solution. We will come back to this again and see that it is not the solution. The solution is to face up to the real difficulties. People must know that, as long as we are in this House, Northern Ireland is going to remain in the United Kingdom. The Government can have as many talks with Gerry Adams at Stormont as they like, and make as many concessions to him as they like, but the vast majority of the Northern Ireland people—and
  530
  according to Priest Paul of Dungannon, some 15 per cent. of the Roman Catholic people—say that we are going to remain in the Union. The sooner that that is recognised and we start legislating with that in mind, the sooner we will move to something that can bring a real solution to this problem.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Norman A. Godman: The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made an uncharacteristically lengthy speech, in which he rightly argued the case for fair laws. The legitimacy of legislation is determined by its acceptance or rejection by the majority of the people whose behaviour it seeks to shape.
  I am sorry to disturb the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), but in his closing remarks he observed that my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) had no understanding of marches and the circumstances surrounding them. He may be right to some extent. Labour Members do not have a thousandth of the experience of Ulster Unionist Members or of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), but it is absurd to tell someone from the west of Scotland that he has no experience of Orange parades. One of the biggest public events in Scotland in the early summer is an Orange parade.
  With my hon. Friends the Members for East Kilbride, for Clydebank and Milngavie and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), I was proud to take part only a few years ago in a parade through Glasgow. I had better tell the hon. Member for North Antrim, who wants me in the Orange Order, that it was not an Orange parade but a celebration of the 70th birthday of Nelson Mandela. Even the police admitted that 25,000 people were on the parade, but the west of Scotland has Orange parades every year that are bigger than that.
  There are differences. The hon. Members for North Antrim and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) are well known in my constituency. They have well- kent faces. I remind the hon. Member for East Londonderry that some of the finest bands that take part in the parades he attends come from the west of Scotland, so we have some comprehension of parades. The difference is that our communities accommodate each other. We live in peace and harmony.
  It was not always the case. My wife, born and raised in Govan, knows from her early childhood that things could be lively and that a big police presence was needed. There is a story, possibly apocryphal, in the west of Scotland that the chief constable in Strathclyde had a nice sense of humour. He always put a Catholic police officer in charge of Orange parades, while republican parades would be marshalled by a Presbyterian police officer.
  Mr. William Thompson: In the hon. Gentleman's area, there is no Sinn Fein-IRA to oppose marches. Many people support and watch marches. That is why they go off peacefully. Furthermore, the constitution of the people of Scotland is not under threat.
  Mr. Godman: I said that there were many more differences than similarities. I said that the other evening as well—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was

  531
  here. None the less, there are some similarities. He is right, but we have some Sinn Fein supporters and some extremist supporters of the other side. When I was a member of the review committee at Edinburgh prison, in six months I interviewed three men who were being assessed for release under licence. All three were extremist loyalists who had been gaoled for gun miming.
  While we have some experience, it is not a thousandth of the suffering of the people who are represented by Unionist Members. We have some understanding and a lot of sympathy. If we did not, we would not be involved in a debate such as this. We are friends of the people of Northern Ireland. There are many tangled relationships between Northern Ireland and the west of Scotland. I believe that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has a sister who runs a very fine guest house down. in Kintyre—not that I am advertising the establishment for her. Arrests in the west of Scotland are usually because the police have to lift drunks. In the west of Scotland, people accommodate each other. My only deep regret is that the same does not prevail in Northern Ireland.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: When the police tell groups that want to march through the streets of Glasgow that their chosen routes are not suitable—not for fear of public disorder but because of traffic disorder—they accept it. They may not like it, they may grumble, but they accept it.
  Mr. Godman: I am pleased that the differences in the west of Scotland are confined to Ibrox and Parkhead in the main. I want to be brief. I shall not speak for as long as some hon. Members have. I know that people want to go home.
  The Bill was changed in the other place. Clause 3 was removed, and other amendments were made. I have a couple of questions for my hon. Friend from the other side of the Clyde, the Under-Secretary. I want UIE to come to my side, of course, but that is another story.
  May I impress on the Minister that new legislation should be used to ensure that civil rights are not pushed to one side by those who believe that might is on their side. The hon. Member for North Antrim was right about that. The legislation has to be seen to be fair to the people of the two traditions. All sections of the community must be seen to be treated with equity. The commission, not the RUC, must become the arbiter of what is to be seen as just and fair conduct. Those claiming the right to march have to take responsibility for their actions.
  I do not believe that this legislation panders to one side or the other. It needs to be amended. I do not anticipate serving on the Standing Committee. The Whip is scowling at me, so perhaps I will.
  On clause 12, why do bands need to be registered? I thought that registration of bands had been on the statute book for some years. I am not sure that anyone has been able to demonstrate how best such registration can be employed. What is the point of it? In Scotland, the Orange Order organises its own registration of bands.
  If, despite my reservations, clause 12 remains unamended, what about the Scottish bands that take part in parades? I know that there are some fine bands in Northern Ireland in both communities, but some of the
  532
  best bands and players come from my constituency. Under clause 12, would Scottish bands that play regularly in Northern Ireland have to register?
  As for the commission, what about the role of the chairman? Perhaps I should say "or chairwoman", given that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is sitting alongside me—I believe that she is the only female Member here tonight. I hope that three women will be appointed to the commission, so why not create a chairman or a chairwoman?
  I should like to see a judicial person—perhaps a retired judge or a Queen's counsel—appointed to the commission, because, whatever the qualities and qualifications of the other commissioners, someone with a legal background and training would strengthen it and give added confidence to other commissioners when they make their determinations.
  I have been influenced in my thinking on the commission and the Bill by two academics, Dominic Bryan and Neil Jarman. I asked those two gentlemen what they thought about the commission.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Down had some reservations about clause 2, under which determinations are made. When the commission gathers information, takes evidence, offers a preliminary view and then makes a formal determination, I hope that there will be an opportunity for such a determination to be reviewed on the basis of fresh evidence or fresh applications being submitted.
  I welcome the Bill in principle, but I would like answers to my questions.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: We heard earlier about some of the credentials of other hon. Members who have spoken. Although I went to the Royal Belfast Academical Institution—I think that I can say without fear of contradiction that it is the best school in Northern Ireland—I still do not pretend to have all the answers. I am surprised that I got away with that comment about my school, but there we go.
  Mr. Trimble: It was merely Presbyterian courtesy.
  Mr. Öpik: I realise now that it was that rather than anything else which led to my remark being heard in silence.
  I do not pretend to have the answers to the problems and the views that I express on behalf of the Liberal Democrats are meant to add value to the debate. I do not pretend to have a monopoly on good ideas, but I offer these comments in a spirit of constructive debate.
  Marches and parades have become increasingly contentious in the past three years. Drumcree has been discussed and I will not rehearse the arguments about it. Nevertheless, it must be said that there is a huge cost involved in such parades in terms of the estrangement that they cause between communities and between the police and those communities as a result of the disturbances that take place. A gulf has also developed between the perspectives of the two groups. On the one hand, some people perceive that their inalienable right to assemble and march is being infringed for political motives; on the other, people feel that an alien culture is being forced upon them, backed up by the might of the security forces.

  533
  There is always the danger, as we have seen again tonight, of looking for problems rather than solutions and looking for those at fault rather than considering what we can do to move forward. I have a minor concern because politicians on the mainland sometimes misinterpret that debate and seek to find fault with the Northern Irish politicians, many of whom try very hard to seek accords between the two sides.
  I am the first to admit that I have had many heated debates with colleagues from Northern Ireland on such issues and I have many differences with them. I recognise, however, and I hope that the House does, too, that in order to make progress we do not just have to introduce Bills with which we may or may not agree, but we have to provide the space for detente to be established among those politicians.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) spoke about the important principles of law, justice and equality. He also spoke about the importance of voluntary restrictions and tolerance. We must not only encourage such attitudes among others, but display them in our own behaviour. Voluntary restrictions and tolerance must be exercised by both sides. It is so easy to expect the other side to show those characteristics without feeling the need to make what may feel like considerable concessions oneself.
  We can choose to see what we want to see. We can choose to be offended and, above all else, we can choose to believe in our right to perform certain actions. That is at the core of the debate.
  The North report sought to align those perspectives. The North commission held 93 separate meetings and produced a document of more than 200 pages. The legislation, which was enacted in the twilight weeks of the previous Conservative Government, insisted on a notification period for parades, restrictions on alcohol and some other important measures which were instrumental in making the parades of the summer of 1997 markedly less troublesome than those of the past.
  The Bill takes the North report recommendations further. Let me say at this point that the Liberal Democrats therefore believe that the Bill is the correct way to proceed at this time. Let us not forget that about 3,000 marches are held and just a tiny proportion of those end up on the news for being contentious. The legislation is targeted not at the 99 per cent. that pass without incident, but at the 1 per cent. that cause problems. I do not know what effect the legislation will have on the other 99 per cent., but I sincerely hope that we can navigate a way through that does not impinge on the peace-loving and sensible marches that take place, which are respected by both sides of the community.
  The Bill is therefore welcome to Liberal Democrats, and we will give it our whole-hearted support, because of its central innovation—the Parades Commission. It is a truly sensible way to regulate such matters. It is independent and I hope that it will be a major advance in the effort to decouple concerns about political expedience from the desire to do the right thing.
  It is also good to see that the powers of decision making by the commission are not unaccountable. In certain circumstances, as set out in article 9 of the public order
  534
  order, the Secretary of State may reconsider them. The Secretary of State will remain responsible for the overall situation in the Province. The Parades Commission is not a quango to which the Secretary of State can simply pass the buck or offload the blame. Nevertheless, the commission has real decision-making authority and, as much as responsibilities can be clearly delineated, the Bill is successful in achieving that.
  It is also welcome to see a Bill that contains such a rounded group of measures. For example, I was glad to see that in clause 13—unlucky for some—clear punishments are laid down for those who obstruct a march that has been allowed by the commission and that those punishments are equal to the punishments meted out to those who parade when they are not allowed to do so. That clause has been referred to before, and. I recognise that it is somewhat contentious, but we support it. It is important for the commission to be seen to be even-handed and the clause will help it to be so.
  The Bill has distilled the perceptiveness and thoughtfulness of the North report into balanced, carefully worded legislation. I was glad to see that the Government took on so many of the points made in another place. For example, the words "serious" and "undue" have been added to clause 1 as a result of the wise suggestion of Conservative Members. Liberal Democrats were glad to see more realistic treatment being given to the issue of alcohol at public processions. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made some good points about that.
  All of those in another place, including Unionists and nationalists, were able to fall in behind the move to abandon former clause 3 that would have extended the remit of the commission to cover the rather strange phrase:
  "other expressions of cultural identity".
  I pay tribute to Lord Alderdice for being one of the first to recognise the folly of giving the commission such wide-ranging powers. I suspect that it did not relish the prospect of having to implement them. If the commission had had powers over
  "other expressions of cultural identity"
  who knows what would have been banned? Painted kerbstones and tricolours would probably have been out of the window straight away, and shamrocks and poppies would have been next. Would green jumpers have been considered contentious? Would the Orange mobile phone network have come under the hammer? I wonder whether the Spice Girls movie would have been allowed to open in Northern Ireland, given that in the film the girls drive around in a huge bus with a Union Jack on the side. Lord Alderdice was able to highlight the nonsense of legislating against such things—although I understand that he used other examples.
  One of the lessons to be learnt from that phrase is that anything can be made into a symbolic act if we choose to judge it as such. There is sometimes a tendency in our debates to confuse the wider issues, as revealed by that example. The clause would have made the legislation difficult to operate and we should all be glad to see the back of it.
  We Liberal Democrats also have some concerns about the Bill. First, according to the Bill, several parades cannot be treated as a unit. We feel that it would be more

  535
  helpful if the commission were able to treat marches in groups so that it could negotiate with the various marchers and decide on the merits of each march. Marchers would be able to march and local residents would be pleased to have severely cut the number of marches in some situations. That would acknowledge the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland, with a certain amount of negotiation always taking place in the background.
  At present, as the commission cannot take into account the pattern and frequency of marches, if it were to allow one march along a particular route, it should be inclined to allow identical marches the following week in order to keep things balanced. As the Bill stands, the commission could be forced to give all-or-nothing verdicts rather than the balanced compromises that are so desperately needed in these delicate situations. I understand why this proposed change might be incompatible with the European convention on human rights and the forthcoming United Kingdom human rights Bill. We should like to consider this aspect and I would welcome the views of the Under-Secretary of State when he winds up the debate.
  I also note that the commission's preliminary view will be given informally. Consultation is valuable. There is a danger that if the commission were to publish its preliminary view informally, some people might try to use coercion to get it to change its views. We must avoid that temptation and that danger. The commission must be clear minded and specific about what informal consultation means and what it will take to make it change its initial judgment.
  In another place, the Under-Secretary of State gave a commitment to deal with the issue of a code of conduct for counter-demonstrations. While I appreciate the need for counter-demonstrations to be regulated, I wonder whether an in-depth code of conduct is wise. Surely, existing public order legislation is sufficient. If a mob are obstructing a parade that has been allowed by the Parades Commission, could they not be read the riot act and dealt with accordingly under existing legislation? The code of conduct could be useful as long as it is a simple distillation of current public order legislation. Whatever the code of conduct turns out to be, it must be simple, straightforward and unambiguous.
  Paragraph 13 of schedule 1 calls for an annual report from the commission. Is it intended that that report should be debated on the Floor of the House? I commend the Government on their decision, in another place, to make concessions on what has become clause 15, which will increase parliamentary scrutiny.
  Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may not remove the chairman or any members of the commission owing to the decisions that they make that fall within their remit. That fact should be widely publicised as it will help to establish the commission's independence.
  We should do well to reflect on the considered process that has brought the legislation before us. The North report was extremely well thought out. The other place gave the Bill thorough treatment and hon. Members benefit from that, and also from the Government's reasonable attitude in taking on suggestions made from all parties.
  Alastair Graham and the Parades Ccommission will need luck and our support in the months ahead if they are to implement the legislation wisely. We therefore wish
  536
  them luck in their daunting task and we hope that they will take on board any developments and evolutions that strike them as reasonable as they move towards implementation of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim said that a Bill will not solve the problems of parades, and he was correct. Effective implementation of the Bill is not a result, but an attitude; success in the affairs of Northern Ireland is not an outcome, but a choice. Such a hard choice involves compromises on all sides. No Government Bill can cause that to happen, nor can I, as the Liberal Democrat spokesman on Northern Ireland. But there are those in the House who have great influence over Northern Irish matters. Although it is a difficult job and no one underestimates the challenges for those who operate on a day-to-day basis in the Province, it is up to them, with the full backing of the House, to seek ways forward.
  I offer my services and those of my party to help the process move forward. We must recognise above all that the fact that the Bill is before us is a symptom of the deeper problems in Northern Ireland that many hon. Members on both sides of the House and many Northern Ireland colleagues have lucidly described.
  Ultimately, it is important that those involved directly in the settlement talks know that everyone at Westminster wishes them well in searching for a solution. The Bill is not intended to be a panacea for every problem, but a statement, and, I hope, a controlling mechanism to calm some of the problems of the past. Good will from those who partake to make parades more inclusive and less threatening, coupled with good will from local residents, who should occasionally give marchers the benefit of the doubt, would be immensely welcome.
  We shall do all that we can to assist in the process and the Government can be assured of the good will of the Liberal Democrats as the Bill proceeds.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. William Thompson: It is good to be able to be called tonight to speak about the Bill. We welcome the fact that it is a Bill, not an order, so that we shall have the opportunity fully to debate its principles; then, in Committee, discuss it in detail; and finally discuss it during its remaining stages before it eventually becomes law.
  It is tragic that those who represent the Government in Northern Ireland pay so little attention to the elected representatives of the Province. It is clear from what has been said tonight that all the hon. Members who represent the Ulster Unionist party, the majority party in Northern Ireland, which won the election, oppose the Bill. But those who come over to govern us from Westminster have the arrogance to think that they know more about Northern Ireland than the elected representatives. They seek to impose their will on the people of Northern Ireland and we can see this clearly in the Bill.
  I am reminded of the words of a famous man, Lord Denning, who said of the universal declaration of human rights of the United Nations that everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association:
  "This freedom has only been won after much pain and anguish. It is bound up with the right to demonstrate. These demonstrations are made for various causes. Often it is to protest against the Government or against its doings. People march along the streets. They carry banners. They hear speeches. History shows how much

  537
  Governments have disliked those demonstrations. So much so that they used to regard them as unlawful assemblies. They arrested the ringleaders and prosecuted them. Sometimes the demonstrations were for good causes, sometimes for bad causes. In principle, all these can and should be allowed by law so long as they are peaceful."
  Unfortunately, I do not think that a more hurtful Bill on public order has ever been debated in the House. Indeed, the restrictions that will now be placed on parades are greater than have ever been proposed in the House. The present legislation relating to public order in Northern Ireland is the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. Article 4 of part II of the order lays down the four criteria under which a policeman can re-route a parade. It states that he may do so if

  "(a) it may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community; or

  (b) the purpose of the persons organising it is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do".

  Those words are a direct quotation from the Public Order Act 1986 relating to mainland England and Wales. It is remarkable that that Bill was opposed, tooth and nail, by the Labour party. Labour Members insisted that the first criteria on—
  "it may result in serious public disorder"
  was sufficient and they strongly opposed the other criteria. It is rather strange that, despite their opposition then, the Labour Government are here tonight proposing far more severe restrictions on any public parade.
  When we look up the Committee stage of the 1986 Act, we find that the present Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), opposed the measures greatly. He said that they were drawn from the law in South Africa and told us that
  "The White Paper outlines some of the Government's reasons for the inclusion of the power, which even President Botha has not yet taken it upon himself to use."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 27 February 1986; c. 534.]
  When we came to the final stages of the Bill, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), then the Opposition spokesmen, said:
  "We still dislike some of part I, and especially some of part II, considerably. I give notice to the Minister and his officials that an incoming Labour Government after the general election will repeal most of the contentious aspects of part II and consider part I."—[Official Report, 30 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 1063.]
  After some years, the Labour party has arrived in government. Are the Labour Government going to repeal the Public Order Act 1986, because they find that the conditions and restrictions therein are as unacceptable now as they were then?
  In 1986, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) stated:
  "In 1979 the Government claimed that they would set the people free. They talked about law and order and said that they would impose a short, sharp shock on those who were supposed to be upsetting society at that time. After seven years, the Government have not set the people free."
  538
  He went on to say he was happy that his right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton had said that parts of the legislation would be replaced by a future Labour Government because
  "the legislation attacks civil liberties."—[Official Report, 30 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 1068.]
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am not totally aware of the circumstances, but one thing I do know is that today we have an entirely different Bill before us, which cannot in any way be described as comparable with the 1986 Act. I remind the hon. Gentleman that 11 years have passed, which is a long time in politics. In 1986, Northern Ireland was ablaze; now, we have an opportunity to get a peaceful settlement. What is taking place here today is an attempt—no more than that—at providing a building block to peace. I also remind him that 11 years ago, he and his hon. Friends would not have been seen dead with Gerry Adams; now, they go into the same room. He should understand that the ground has shifted quite considerably, not only for me, but for him and for the leader of his party. I want to see this building block secure; I do not want to go back to what happened in 1986. I want to see a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Thompson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but I understood him to be a man who stood by his principles.
  Mr. Skinner: This is not the same Bill.
  Mr. Thompson: But it is the same principle. The Bill would put restrictions on the people of Northern Ireland that the hon. Gentleman would never accept for people here on the mainland. When in opposition, the Labour Front Benchers said that they would repeal the 1986 Act, yet now they are the Government they have neither the guts nor the intention to do so. They have changed their principles and now seek to place greater restrictions on the people of Northern Ireland, such are their double standards. That just shows that the higher one goes in government, the lower one's principles become. The Labour Government should realise that.
  Let me now deal with the Bill before us. It deals with an important principle that we have here on the mainland, which is that nobody—especially no Government—should interfere in the operational matters of the police. The Bill takes police operational matters out of their hands and places them with an unelected quango. We have plenty of quangos in Northern Ireland and the idea that one can have an independent quango in Northern Ireland is absolute nonsense. One can become a member of a quango in Northern Ireland only by showing oneself to be so-called apolitical, or one of the great and the good, or one who is somehow superior to everybody else, especially elected representatives. Most of the people on the Northern Ireland quangos have a deep antipathy to elected representatives and to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland.
  We find that the restrictions that can now be placed on parades are absolutely wide. The Bill states:
  "The Commission may issue a determination in respect of a proposed public procession imposing on the persons organising or taking part in it such conditions as the Commission considers necessary."

  539
  In other words, if the commissioners do not like the people who are parading or what they stand for, they can place restrictions on the parade. It is wide open: those who are disliked can be stopped from parading—that is what the Bill would allow.
  Another great problem is that the Bill would reduce the powers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If the commission makes a decision and the parade is about to begin or has started, the police will have fewer powers than they have now, because they will no longer have the powers under article 4 of the 1987 order. We shall therefore find that there is more trouble, not less. The commission will be able to operate various restrictions. It will issue guidelines or a code of conduct, some parts of which are ridiculous, but those who seek to hold a parade will have to abide by them or face restrictions on their parade.
  The Bill would give powers to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that, as I understand it, even the Home Secretary on the mainland does not have. The Secretary of State will, of her own volition, be able to ban a parade in Northern Ireland. As I understand the law on the mainland, only certain types of parade can be banned here; but under the Bill a single, specific parade can be banned. That power can be used indiscriminately or against particular Orange parades.
  The commission has published certain procedures that it intends to follow. We are told that it will go around the various controversial areas and that it will then give a preliminary indication of what will happen in those areas. I can think of no more ridiculous action that the Parades Commission could take. What will happen in the spring if the commission says that a particular parade will not be allowed to go ahead? Those opposed to the parade will foregather; those in favour of it will gather. Far from ameliorating the problem, this will make it worse. There will be a greater likelihood of confrontation and disorder.
  There are many who think that an accommodation can be reached in such circumstances. When the Prime Minister met the leader of Sinn Fein last week, I understand that there were two opposing crowds outside 10 Downing street. Can anyone imagine an accommodation between those two demonstrations? It is folly to think so. Equally, it is folly to imagine an accommodation being reached between those who believe in law and order and who march according to the law in a peaceable fashion and those who seek, for political reasons, to break up those marches. It is wholly naive to suppose that a harmonious conclusion can be reached—
  Mr. Öpik: Surely in such circumstances those seeking to have a peaceful demonstration will be protected by the Bill and those seeking to do evil will be prevented from carrying out their evil-doing.
  Mr. Thompson: Would that what the hon. Gentleman says were true. In practice, it is those upholding the law on peaceful parades who get stopped, and it is the law breakers whom the police are accommodating. We need no change in the law of Northern Ireland. We want the police to apply the law just as it is applied on the mainland.
  When people on the mainland want a parade, they go along to the police and agree the route with the police, and then the parade is policed by the police. No one gets
  540
  near it; no one is allowed to interfere with it, or sit down in the road and stop it. People know that they cannot get away with disruption, so the parades go off peaceably.
  In Northern Ireland, by contrast, the police stop parades and give in to the law breakers. That is why we have a problem: the law breakers have found that if they sit down in the street, or threaten to do so, the parade will be stopped. All that we need is the impartial application of the law by the police. People need to know that they cannot get away with obstructing a parade. That is the only way to solve the issue in Northern Ireland.
  It is stupid to suppose that an accommodation can be reached between people who are opposed politically and in many other ways. I recall that the Secretary of State tramped around Drumcree meeting every conceivable person, but in the end she could not produce an agreement either. And in Londonderry even the leader of the SDLP could not, for all his efforts, produce an agreement. One cannot reconcile irreconcilables. The only way to peace is to treat everyone the same way, equally under the law. The law breakers, whoever they may be, must be dealt with by the police and must know that they will not succeed.
  The Bill will not solve the problems of Northern Ireland; it will accentuate them. For 25 years, we who are elected have come here and told the Government what they should do, but they ignore our advice, which is why our problems persist. I know that time is limited today, so I thank hon. Members for listening attentively to what I have had to say.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: I was not aware of any time limits on the debate, but I do not intend to detain the House unduly, for several reasons. The first is that the background to the legislation belongs to the previous Government. I am mindful also of the co-operation given to the Opposition by the Government in another place and of the fact that the Government looked kindly on many of the Opposition's amendments. I pay tribute to Lord Dubs for his co-operation. I am sure that that co-operation will be maintained when we take the Bill into Committee in the new year.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, the work behind the Bill began with the severe public disorder in Northern Ireland during the summer of 1996, especially, but not exclusively, at Drumcree. The then Secretary of State, Sir Patrick Mayhew, announced on 15 July 1996 the establishment of a review body comprising Dr. Peter North, the Very Rev. John Dunlop and Father Oliver Crilly to make recommendations on the future management of parades. I take this opportunity to praise the work of that review body, which produced a long and well-argued document containing some 43 recommendations. Interestingly, not all those recommendations have been incorporated in the legislation—a point to which we shall return in Committee.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew made a statement in the House on the North report on 30 January 1997, and the then Government accepted all the seven principles that the report proposed as the basis for future development of the processes and procedures governing parades.

  541
  In their final paragraph, the authors of the report defined their proposals as having been designed
  "to provide all the interested parties with the mechanisms and opportunities to work towards mutual understanding and local accommodation".
  That is a worthy aim with which we can all agree.
  The authors said:
  "We would be delighted to look back in five years and wonder why it was felt necessary to propose such major changes in legislation that address the problems of public order rather than promoting the community benefits of shared celebration, in the light of the subsequent positive development of Northern Ireland society."
  Wise words indeed. The twin-track approach is vital.
  Let us not lightly set aside the fact that these are major changes. As Sir Patrick said in his statement of 30 January:
  "the proposal that an independent body should … take over the RUC's decision-making power in respect of parades is a radical and far-reaching one."—[Official Report, 30 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 508.]
  After his statement, the Secretary of State pledged to take the North proposals out to consultation. That yielded some important common strands of agreement. First, there was encouragement for parties in disputes to reach local accommodations. People felt that it was not right for the police to make and then enforce decisions regarding parades. They felt that there was a role for an independent advisory or decision-making body. There was support for principles and processes that would provide greater information about parades, and there was a case for guidelines and a code of conduct to regulate the behaviour of participants and protesters.
  The North review also conducted a survey of attitudes, with interesting results. Eighty-eight per cent. of respondents said that, in the event of a dispute, a negotiated accommodation should be sought. Seventy-nine per cent. said that, if an accommodation was not possible, a binding decision should be taken by someone else. Interestingly, in answer to the question who should take that decision, 49 per cent. said an independent commission, 29 per cent. said the police, 11 per cent. said the Secretary of State and 6 per cent. said the judiciary. Those percentages add up to about 95 per cent. of the people who were contacted: they all wanted a binding independent decision to be taken by someone. We shall work with the Government to move that process forward on the basis of the consensus shown by those findings.
  I have several questions for the Under-Secretary of State. Under clause 7, the commission has powers to impose conditions on public processions, including powers to amend the proposed route and to restrict access to certain areas and places. However, there do not appear to be any rights of appeal against an adverse decision by the parade organisers, or rights to a reply within a certain time. Rights of appeal, if I may call them that, are available in clause 8 to the Chief Constable, who can appeal to the Secretary of State if there is concern in a public order context about a decision by the commission. If the Chief Constable may appeal, why do parade organisers who have an adverse decision taken against them not have rights of appeal?
  542
  Clause 7 lays the responsibility for complying with the conditions placed on a procession squarely on the shoulders of
  "the persons organising or taking part in it",
  but no responsibility is placed on the shoulders of the protesters or protest groups to act within a code of conduct. Such a proposal was made in the North report.
  A key element of the Bill is how, in a specific case, the commission's determination is to be enforced. Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State powers to ban public processions or parades. We welcome the changes that were made to that clause in Committee in another place; the threshold triggering a decision by the Secretary of State to ban was enlarged to encompass
  "serious public disorder or serious damage to property",
  bringing the Bill into line with the public order legislation that is being superseded.
  However, just as there is no balancing intervention under clause 7 for protesters or protest groups to abide by a code of conduct, there are no powers in clause 10 for the Secretary of State to ban a counter-demonstration if a parade has been deemed lawful by the commission but continues to be opposed by the protest groups, which seem determined to ignore the results of adjudication. That appears to be, at best, an oversight and, at worst, a serious imposition on one section of the community but not the other. If my reading is correct, the protest can go ahead and the perpetrators be charged under clause 13, or the threat is deemed by the Chief Constable to be so great that he intervenes under his option in clause 8, but that is simply a reaction to intimidation and threat.
  I promised to be brief. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell said, we shall not oppose the Second Reading. We welcome the acceptance of the sensible and carefully thought out amendments made in another place. However, we still believe that the Bill is capable of improvement and we shall seek the co-operation of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who we hope will find ways of accommodating us in Committee.
  7.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): I am aware of a conflict between my obligations to hon. Members who want a response to points that they have made and to all other hon. Members, who want brevity.
  I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. A fair number of points have been made. I shall try to deal with as many of them as possible, but a good many of them were Committee points.
  We all know that the word "parades" is invested with a significance for both sides of the community that can sometimes seem mysterious to people on the mainland. There is bitterness and distrust—well evidenced tonight by the speech by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson)—on both sides about the issue. We are seeking to create new structures to tackle the disputes. We hope that eventually those new structures will win the allegiance of all.
  The events of the past few years have been unacceptable. The rule of law must prevail in the United Kingdom. Some disputes have made people realise that

  543
  the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 contained a perverse incentive by making it possible for the group that threatened to create most mayhem to get what it wanted. That is not acceptable in any part of the United Kingdom.
  If we believe in the rule of law, we must face up to the fact that when any law—including the one before us—is passed, after a full debate and full consideration in Committee, a duty rests on all hon. Members to support the law. That is an aspect of equality before the law, and I trust that all hon. Members will uphold that duty.
  I endorse the tributes that the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) paid to what happened in the other place. For the sake of brevity, I shall not list the people who were mentioned, but I believe that all their lordships made useful contributions.
  I believe that, as the hon. Member for Bracknell implied, the core of the Bill is in clause 7, which is well expressed in terms of balanced rights and responsibilities. Many of the contributions that were made by Unionist Members caused me to think that every time they spoke they strengthened the argument for an objective independent commission. The issue is political; it is about force; it is about territory. I do not believe that the police should be dragged into a quasi-political issue; they have said that that makes their lives intolerable, so we must find an alternative.
  I support the comments about the contribution of the police, who have been placed in a no-win situation. However difficult it is, we must—as the hon. Member for Bracknell said in a good contribution—build consensus in the House, as was done in another place. We shall conduct the Committee stage in this Commons in a similar spirit of trying to improve the Bill.
  I said that the hon. Members who spoke from the Unionist side seemed to strengthen the case for a commission, but I emphasise how much the Bill is not an anti-parades Bill. What emerges from the North report, and what all Labour Members believe, is that a balance should be achieved between rights and responsibilities. There has never been, in any country, at any time, the right to march where one likes, when one likes—and there should not be. What exists is a right to process and a right of assembly, but we must always take other people into account.
  In the past few years, it has become obvious that we must take the Royal Ulster Constabulary out of the judgment about what can be allowed under what conditions. I resist what was said by the hon. Member for West Tyrone; we are not removing the Chief Constable's powers to decide how to police. The operational freedom on the day is still there, and must be there, to react to the circumstances. We are merely performing a traditional role of the House, and of judicial or quasi-judicial bodies: setting the framework within which the police operate.
  Mr. Thompson: Is it not a fact that under the Bill the power of the police reverts to what it was before 1936? Their power to ban parades will be under common law; they will have lost the statutory law in that respect.
  Mr. Worthington: I am concerned with the current situation. The past few years have shown us that the 1987 order was not adequate and we must tackle that issue.
  544
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who is not in his place, said that all existing traditional parades should be allowed, but that new parades should be looked at carefully. Clearly, that would be difficult to enshrine in law, particularly once we have incorporated the European convention on human rights into our law. The fact that a parade is new would not allow different considerations to be applied to it and a moment's thought would show that we could not have a law whereby certain practices were allowed for traditional but not non-traditional parades.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) raised a couple of important issues. He was right to say that this is about human relationships—that most difficult and obstinate of characteristics. In the end, it comes down to whether people are willing to accommodate differences. We do not claim that the Bill is the answer, because any law can be broken by people who are not willing to accommodate it, but it is a step forward.
  The hon. Gentleman raised points of detail about clause 2(2)(a) and (b), which grant two powers to the Parades Commission: the first is mediation and the second is determination. That is exactly the sort of issue that can be thrashed out in Committee. One can see why that is proposed
  —because of the involvement of the commission—but one can also see that there could be a confusion of identities. That must be explored in Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill gave powers to the Secretary of State and asked why she could not have that responsibility taken away from her. We must accept the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is ultimately responsible for law and order in Northern Ireland, and one cannot take that power away. She is also referred to in terms of the mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny of various aspects of codes with which she must deal.
  I am delighted to see the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in his place. I pay tribute to him for being in his place, for reasons that he knows. I have already dealt with some of the issues that he raised. He asked why the penalties under the Bill had not been equalised before. That is another matter which was dealt with in another place. It is simply a re-enactment of the provisions in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, in which their lordships saw that there was an inconsistency. That is generally welcomed. The hon. Gentleman also said that it should be an offence to break up a lawful parade. It is already an offence to do so by virtue of article 7 of the 1987 order, which will be re-enacted in clause 11.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Mr. Godman) raised a number of issues. I agree with his first point that civil rights should not be pushed to one side. That goes back to the point about the balance between rights and responsibilities.
  My hon. Friend asked why bands should be registered. That is taken as a reserved power. It was felt that there could be circumstances in which one might need the force of law if bands misbehaved in a particular way. He asked whether Scottish bands going to Northern Ireland would have to be registered. If we introduce that power, those bands will have to be registered, but it will depend on whether the power is taken. We hope that it will never have to be taken. We note my hon. Friend's comments about the need for someone with a legal background to be on the Commission.

  545
  The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) raised a number of issues. We welcome the support that he has given to the Bill. I have already given assurances about the conduct in Committee. We noted the point that he made—Lord Alderdice also made it—about package measures for parades. I admit that when I first became involved with this issue it seemed an attractive proposition to introduce restrictions if a number of parades take the same route each year. However, I am advised, and I see the sense of it, that once we have incorporated the European convention on human rights into our law, problems will arise in terms of accountability for each parade. Moreover, it might be difficult to implement the measure in terms of offences. However, that is a Committee point, as are the hon. Member's questions about annual reports and scrutiny within the House.
  I am convinced that the Bill is a step forward, but, like all Bills that the House passes, it will depend on the consent of the people. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) say that polls show that an overwhelming percentage of people within Northern Ireland want independent arbitration to be introduced. They realise that the police have been put in an impossible position. The overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland detest seeing the rule of law threatened or the law being broken.
  This year's marching season was less damaging than last year's because many statesmanlike decisions were taken, which shows that it is possible to achieve accommodation on this difficult issue. The Labour party is not naive about the forces that are at work, but we believe that we must act above all in the interests of the great majority of law-abiding people in Northern Ireland, who want to stay at home during the marching season rather than have to take their holidays then because of the threat to them. They want the rule of law to be asserted. The structures that we are putting in place will help that to happen. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 159, Noes 7.

  Division No. 124]

  [7.38 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Allen, Graham

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Colman, Tony

  Baker, Norman

  Cooper, Yvette

  Barnes, Harry

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Beard, Nigel

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Crausby, David

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darvill, Keith

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Doran, Frank

  Byers, Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Casale, Roger

  Drew, David

  Caton, Martin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Clapham, Michael

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Efford, Clive

  546

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Flint, Caroline

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Gapes, Mike

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Gardiner, Barry

  Meale, Alan

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Michael, Alun

  Gerrard, Neil

  Milburn, Alan

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Moffatt, Laura

  Godman, Norman A

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Grogan, John

  Mudie, George

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Olner, Bill

  Healey, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Heppell, John

  Pendry, Tom

  Hill, Keith

  Pickles, Eric

  Hope, Phil

  Pond, Chris

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Pope, Greg

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pound, Stephen

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  (Hamilton S)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Keetch, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Khabra, Piara S

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Spellar, John

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Lepper, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Leslie, Christopher

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  (Dewsbury)

  Lock, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Love, Andrew

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Todd, Mark

  McCabe, Steve

  Touhig, Don

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Vaz, Keith

  McDonnell, John

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  McGrady, Eddie

  Watts, David

  McIntosh Miss Anne

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  McIsaac, Shona

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Woolas, Phil

  McNulty, Tony

  Worthington, Tony

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  McWalter, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  McWilliam, John

  Janet Anderson and

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mr. John McFall.

  NOES

  Body, Sir Richard

  Trimble, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Mr. John D. Taylor and

  Thompson, William

  Mr. Roy Beggs.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed to a standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  PUBLIC PROCESSIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of that Act.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

  Hospital Services (Brentwood and Ongar)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Eric Pickles: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise an important constituency matter. I assure the Minister that I do not intend to speak for my allotted time of two and three quarter hours: I shall try to persuade him that the matter should be examined thoroughly without detaining him from sending letters to Santa Claus.
  I speak on behalf of the whole community. All political parties are united against the threat posed to my constituents and their health. I have also received support from all the churches in the Brentwood and Ongar area. I am in an unusual position tonight, as the research for this debate has been conducted by Labour and Liberal Democrat as well as Conservative councillors. Perhaps that goes to prove that, in times of adversity, Brentwood and Ongar sticks together.
  I have three concerns about community medicine in my constituency: first, the removal of beds from the Ongar War Memorial hospital; secondly, the closure of the minor injuries unit at Brentwood community hospital; and, thirdly, the closure of High Wood hospital services to the elderly. Those three measures are a response either to a lack of finance or to an overspending on budget, depending on one's point of view. The three hospitals have not contributed to the overspend, and the proposed savings are relatively small.
  This debate is about the place of community or cottage hospitals in the modern health service and the disadvantages suffered by two small towns that are situated on the fringe of two health authorities. The Ongar War Memorial hospital was established in response to the first world war. Shock at the number of casualties from that conflict prompted communities throughout the land to seek ways of remembering the dead and of recognising the contributions of their neighbours and friends. Ongar decided upon a unique cenotaph—a living monument: a hospital. The money was raised by public donation. Hon. Members should understand that Ongar is not a particularly prosperous community, but it is a committed community that is tremendously proud of its hospital. That commitment continues today, and the hospital's League of Friends has raised almost £1 million—some £920,000—in 1996 prices over the past 17 years.
  The hospital is held in high esteem by my constituents. It provides a variety of services, including speech and language therapy sessions, hearing and development checks, a baby clinic, ante-natal classes, relaxation classes, parentcraft classes, mental health services with the community psychiatric nurse, chiropody and podiatry. It offers day care and currently puts 16 beds to various uses.
  I have received many letters from ex-patients of Ongar hospital or, more often, from their children. They talk of the enormous care and dedication of the staff and the importance of the hospital to the people of Ongar. I shall sum up that depth of feeling by quoting from one letter from a constituent. The impression is often created that

  549
  the hospital predominantly provides services to the elderly. While such services are important, they are just part of the role of that community hospital. My constituent Miss Karen Dunning writes:
  "I spent a week in Ongar War Memorial as I am a diabetic and my GP thought it would be a good idea to place me in hospital for a week to try to get my diabetes under control. I was so pleased that Ongar Memorial found me a bed as it enabled me to not be too far away from my family. Up to this time I thought the hospital was mainly for the elderly—somewhere for people to die. I was very wrong—during that week I got involved with all sorts of people coming in and out of the hospital. It was a real eye opener. Not only does the hospital provide for the sick and dying it also provides a place for people with special needs to go for the day. Giving their family/guardians that much deserved break".
  Some 46 per cent. of beds are occupied by general practitioner admissions, 22 per cent. are dedicated to respite care, 12 per cent. are occupied by patients transferred from other hospitals, 8 per cent. are for terminal or palliative care, and 4 per cent. are dedicated to emergency psychiatric cases. As those figures and Miss Dunning's letter show, it is clear that the majority of patients are sent to the hospital by their GPs. Some 75 per cent. of patients come from North Essex health authority and 25 per cent. from South Essex health authority.
  A large number of patients come from South Essex because of a historical accident in drawing up the boundaries of the health authority. Many of the old parishes in the former rural district council of Ongar fall within the boundaries of South Essex health authority. Hon. Members must understand that the hospital covers 100 square miles of rural Essex in my constituency, and serves not just the town of Ongar but the communities that surround it.
  Travel in the area is not easy, and not all patients have access to private cars. Many people must rely on public transport, which is sometimes non-existent in rural areas. There have been attempts to close Ongar War Memorial hospital in the past, and the hospital was saved last time by the late Richard Crosland when he was Secretary of State for Health. The hospital has grown since then and plays an increasingly important role in the community.
  Only 18 months ago, Essex and Herts Community NHS trust considered the future of Ongar War Memorial hospital. Having stated its high regard for the hospital and recognised the high-quality care that it provides, it went on to consider the hospital's future. I emphasise the fact that the review was conducted only 18 months ago—the ink is still wet on the consultation document. The report states:
  "The remit of small hospitals serving local communities varies considerably, but should address local health and community needs.
  Given the obvious challenges to be faced in the future, Essex and Herts Community NHS Trust together with local professional colleagues, agencies, the League of Friends and the local community, wish to firmly establish the future of Ongar Hospital as a unique and fundamental provider of locally based health care services in its own right."
  It is that fundamental nature of the health service in Ongar that it is so important to preserve.
  That view should be shared by the House. What was true in 1995 must surely be true in 1997. The 1995 report took into account the fact that if beds are removed from one part of an area, pressure is put on beds in another part.
  550
  That process takes pressure off, for example, beds within Princess Alexandra hospital. The report stated that there was
  "potential for the transfer of patients from Princess Alexandra and other district general hospitals to Ongar War Memorial Hospital thereby helping to relieve pressure on acute beds in these former sites."
  No one knows how difficult this winter will be. We know, however, that beds in Ongar will play an important part in relieving pressure on the rest of the health service in the Essex area.
  A working party has been considering the various options for the future of the hospital since July. Curiously, the figures have varied enormously. Surely the authority should know two basic figures: the cost of care and the cost of the savings that it is proposing. The figures have been revised almost weekly. They have the same consistency that the late Senator McCarthy produced in making claims about the number of communists within the State Department.
  I could take the Minister through a long and convoluted route of how changes have taken place. However, I can see a look of despair in his eyes. Instead of taking that route, I shall summarise. We started with a total cost of care per year of £602,000. That figure fell to £545,000. It then dropped to £406,000. Eventually, it increased to £478,000. Similarly, savings have varied between £107,000 and £14,800. Surely, that is worrying. If a hospital is to lose its beds, there must be certainty about figures. Figures should not be produced on a whim.
  It is curious that members of the working party tell me that the health authority has a rather strange way of organising its budget. The working party was told with great pride that the authority always under-budgeted. Apparently, it always submits a figure that is lower than the one that it thinks will succeed. It is not surprising, therefore, that the authority's budget is always exceeded. It is rather like those irritating people whom we occasionally meet in life, who insist on putting their watches ahead by five minutes so that they will never be late. Eventually, they begin to rely on those extra five minutes.
  Once the authority's procedures are known, clinicians rely on the fact that the figures in the budget are not those that will actually be needed. They know that the overall figure will be lower. The result is that the budget will always be exceeded. Surely that is not a sensible approach. As a result, my constituents are having to face cuts.
  There is a need to be certain about the figures. However, there is only one certainty, and that is that there is no certainty about the figures. Perhaps there is one certainty: the Deputy Prime Minister was right when he said that we have closed too many cottage hospitals in the past. That being so, the proposed closure of Ongar War Memorial hospital is a throwback to bad decisions in the past.
  There is an alternative approach, which would make use of beds and fulfil the needs of all the clinics. It would be necessary to examine the protocols for general practitioners' admissions and to provide £65,000-worth of refurbishment. The local League of Friends has promised a substantial donation. Indeed, it has promised £47,000, which would go a considerable way to meeting the total cost.

  551
  Discussions took place with the county council, which inspected the hospital and was very impressed. I have a letter from Mr. Robin Rennie, who is the head of community care services of Essex county council. He visited the hospital and was most impressed with what he saw. He wrote:
  "A project involving joint commissioning for Older Peoples Services are, in my view, long overdue in Essex and there may be a considerable attractiveness in considering such a project in the Ongar area. I have also ensured that there will be a specific section in the new Community Care Plan which highlights particular difficulties in rural areas and the sort of imaginative solutions that might be considered to overcome these local difficulties."
  It is my view, and it appears to be Mr. Rennie's, that that is exactly the imaginative proposal that should be applied to projects for the care of the elderly within the Ongar area of my constituency.
  What is said about the Ongar area of my constituency is also true about Brentwood. The minor injuries unit at the community hospital was described in one of the local newspapers as the "town's best kept secret". The unit relieves pressure on the accident and emergency unit. There is only one small sign on the main road directing my constituents to a modern, clean and brightly decorated unit, which is run well by an efficient staff.
  A mere 7,000 patients a year come to the unit—it has really only just started. That number represents only a fraction of what could be achieved. Many people are not aware of the unit's existence. Those who are come into contact with it only when they receive an injury.
  The accident and emergency unit at Harold Wood hospital is currently closed. The alternative, for my constituents, is a difficult and long journey to the inaccessible A and E unit at Oldchurch hospital. When the new minor injuries unit was opened, it was hailed as the coming thing. It was said that it represented the future. We were told that such units would take pressure off serious A and E cases and would reduce working time. It was claimed that they would offer help where a simple dressing, a splint or a stitch was necessary. It was said that they would offer an alternative to which general practitioners could refer.
  Any of us who have visited an A and E unit know that the hard truth is that the majority of people who go to them should not have done so and instead should have gone to their general practitioner or sought medical help elsewhere. It is often frustrating to see people with minor injuries, nevertheless painful, having to wait for long periods because more serious cases are coming through. That is why the minor injuries unit was so useful.
  It appears that someone in the south Essex area does not like minor injuries units. There are two other units, one at Purfleet and the other at Orsett. They are well used and will remain open for the time being. However, their opening hours will be reduced. Indeed, they will be open only when GPs' surgeries are closed. I cannot help but feel that that is a cynical manoeuvre.
  If we create uncertainty about the opening hours of minor injuries units and reduce the number of people who are involved, it might well be said this time next year, "The minor injuries units in Purfleet and Orsett are not being used." The fate of Brentwood today could well be that of Purfleet and Orsett next year.
  Running through the closure of Ongar and the minor injuries unit, and the problems at High Wood, is the impression that minds are already made up; that,
  552
  despite fairly expensive consultation and full-page advertisements in a local newspaper, people are just going through the motions. Meetings on closures are held in rooms that are deliberately small, so that people who are concerned cannot get in. We have a meeting tomorrow in Brentwood to consider the minor injuries unit and High Wood hospital. The meeting was arranged for the last weekend before Christmas, with the feeling that the public would not turn up. I think that we shall be surprised tomorrow night.
  Brentwood, which is bearing the bulk of the proposed closures—two of the units are within my constituency—feels strongly that if better use were made of the minor injuries unit, it would relieve an enormous amount of pressure on the national health service and reduce waiting time. The suggested savings of £132,000 seem small in comparison to the overall budget. Indeed, all the closures do not amount to very much. I have to agree with Councillor David Gottesmann—a Liberal Democrat—the leader of Brentwood council, that
  "the options concern a reduction in services rather than in bureaucracy."
  At High Wood hospital, the proposals include the closure of Magnolia ward, Laurels ward and Brambles day centre, with 50 in-patient beds. It is not surprising that Mrs. Queenie Bishop, the chairman of Brentwood Age Concern, says:
  "residents are shocked and unhappy at the news."
  The consultation document says that the aim is to
  "achieve the closure of the High Wood site."
  Since the outcry, South Essex health authority has backpedalled on that. Julie Garbutt, the director of health care development for South Essex health authority, told a recent meeting of the community health council that the original document listing the options for saving money was "not accurate" when it stated that the aim was to achieve the closure of the High Wood site. She went on to say:
  "We are not talking about the whole closure, we are talking about beds".
  That is an interesting idea on how to create a more efficient hospital: do not close the hospital, just get rid of the beds. It saves on linen and also waiting times. I cannot help but feel that views on a hospital without beds are the same. The Ongar War Memorial hospital campaign group has a saying: "No beds equals no hospital."
  The cuts are not about improving health services. They are not even about changes in health service needs in my constituency. Rather, they are about shifting resources from one area at the borders of two health authorities. The net result will be a reduction in services for the elderly and in community health services. It will increase bed blocking in my part of Essex, as well as the pressure on acute services.
  The Government have a number of health service policies that I support. I agree broadly with the shift towards primary care, and with close partnership between GPs and local hospitals. Small cottage hospitals have a vital part to play in the overall team. I ask the Minister to spell out where community or cottage hospitals fit into the modern health service.
  8.14 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) on securing this debate. The issues that he raised are of concern to many of his constituents. Indeed, some of them have written to me, so I am personally aware of the difficulties in his area.
  I echo one or two of the things that the hon. Gentleman said about the efforts of staff to maintain services in the NHS, particularly at this time of year. The truth—as we all recognize—is that, without the dedication and enthusiasm of health service staff, the NHS would simply grind to a halt. I know that they face many daunting tasks this year, but I have no doubt that they will undertake them commendably and with enthusiasm.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government share his aim of providing high-quality health care to the people of this country, wherever they live. He will be aware that, just last week, we published a White Paper on the future of the national health service, which set out the steps that we intend to take. We propose a 10-year programme of modernisation to ensure that the NHS is both modern and dependable.
  I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman shares the Government's aim of switching resources from bureaucracy to front-line patient care. I do not think that many can argue with that proposition. I can assure him that, during this Parliament, we will move approximately £1 billion out of bureaucracy and into front-line patient services, which is arguably where it should have been in the first place.
  The changes that we want to make will ensure a more responsive and dependable service to every community in this country. Community hospitals have a very important part to play in many parts of the country in a modern national health service. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will be aware from the White Paper that community hospitals feature within the framework of the new NHS that we seek to fashion.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman is pleased with the Government's proposals, particularly to strengthen the links between primary care and the community health services that are provided by community and cottage hospitals in many parts of the country. That is where the future of community hospitals lies, in ensuring a stronger and better relationship between community health care and primary health care than perhaps has been the case.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific concerns about current and future consultation exercises. I think that it is fair to say that he is suffering from a bout of consultations. Most of the hospitals that serve his constituents are subject to consultation of one form or another. To the west, Harold Wood hospital serves the residents of the Brentwood area; to the east is Basildon; while within Brentwood are located Brentwood Community hospital, High Wood and Little High Wood hospitals, and Warley hospital. Finally, in the Ongar part of his constituency is the Ongar War Memorial hospital.
  This whole area is one of significant challenges for the national health service. All the local health authorities face difficult decisions about how best to use finite resources. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, two are involved in consulting on "Options for Change".
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the future of Ongar War Memorial hospital is being consulted on by the North Essex health authority. I have listened to what he and
  554
  other hon. Members have had to say about this hospital. As he is probably aware, I have had communications from members of the local community across the political divide about this matter. Let me stress from the outset the importance that the Government attach to ensuring that plans for service development are determined in an open manner, and that any changes that might happen should be implemented sensitively and appropriately.
  As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the consultation period ends on 14 January 1998. Therefore, there is still time for those with concerns or suggestions about the proposals to make their thoughts known to the health authority. Only in that way can the health authority ensure that local ideas and suggestions are properly considered. That is true not just for Ongar War Memorial hospital but for all the other proposals that the health authority is considering.
  I understand that the health authority's principal purpose in consulting on these changes is to improve the quality, effectiveness and efficiency of care by reconfiguring services across north Essex.
  As this consultation is still in progress, it would be inappropriate for me to speak in any detail about it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, if the consultation is contested by any of the local community health councils, it will be for Ministers to make the final decision. Until then, I shall keep an open mind. However, I have listened extremely carefully to the hon. Gentleman.
  It is particularly important when such proposals are being considered that the views and needs of local people are properly taken into account. We have a statutory responsibility to consult publicly and weigh the results fairly and carefully. When I say "we", I mean not just the Government but the local health authority as well.
  The hon. Gentleman then discussed some of the changes recently mooted by the South Essex health authority affecting the Brentwood part of his constituency. I am aware that there is a particular problem in south Essex to do with the anticipated financial position of the health authority in the next financial year beginning on 1 April. South Essex has continued to be funded above the average for England. That has been true for a number of years, and it will be true next year as well. The health authority will receive a real-terms increase of around 2.3 per cent.
  In addition, the Government have invested about £2 million this winter to deal with some of the particular pressures to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. Approximately two thirds of the money that has been made available for the winter months will be transferred directly to social services, particularly to deal with some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman addressed, such as bed blocking and ensuring that discharge arrangements are in place. Such arrangements will be particularly beneficial to elderly patients in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  However, as we know, resources are finite, and the health authority has put in train a process which is aimed at making services reflect the level of need, while keeping within the overall amount available to it.
  South Essex health authority is conducting an informal consultation on the subject of change to acute and community services. Some of the health authority's proposals for change would affect the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I have seen a copy of the health authority's

  555
  public consultation timetable which was agreed with the local community health councils, which have played a constructive role.
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, on 5 December a leaflet in the form of a newspaper wrap-round, conveying a number of health service options, was distributed to every household in south Essex. Residents will have until 16 January to make known their views on the present options. That can be done by attending public meetings, returning one of the questionnaires or phoning a free phone line.
  On 22 January, the health authority will consider the feedback to enable it to determine the proposals to put out for formal public consultation. The second stage of the exercise will begin in February, and will last until the end of March. The health authority then proposes to meet in April to make its final decision. I hope that setting out the process that is to take place will be helpful.
  As the informal consultation is still in progress, the same conditions apply to the review being carried out by the North Essex health authority. Again, I am not in a position to comment at this stage. It is unusual for Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and have little to say, but I am bound by convention and by my obligation to ensure that, if the results of the consultation are contested, I can continue to demonstrate that I have an open mind and will consider the issue fairly and squarely.
  556
  I was concerned to hear the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the nature of some of the informal consultation exercises which have taken place thus far. However, there is no question whatever of anyone simply going through the motions. I expect it to be a proper consultation, and it will be. I have noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's concerns, along with those of the local council and others about the informal consultation, and I expect the South Essex health authority to take those concerns into account in considering its response to the formal consultation.
  Consultations give rise to strong local feeling. Local people may feel that the proposals will have an adverse effect on the provision of health care in their area. That is not why consultations are undertaken. They are carried out to make substantial improvements, and should be for the benefit of local people.
  I share the hon. Gentleman's determination to ensure that high-quality treatment and care are available to the people in the Brentwood and Ongar area. I am sure that the local NHS trusts, as well as the local health authorities, share that commitment. I strongly urge all interested parties in the local community to pass on their thoughts and comments on the proposals that are currently out to consultation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Eight o'clock.

TREASURY

  Insurance Premium Tax
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the use of insurance premium tax as a marketing promotion by insurance retailers competing with travel agents. [20713]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: I have received a number of such representations.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the system for allowing United Kingdom transactions to be made in euros will also allow payments in other European currencies. [15917]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The banking sector has decided to put in place the necessary parallel infrastructure to handle euro transactions from 1 January 1999, for the financial markets, businesses and individuals. The infrastructure will not have the capability to allow transactions in other European foreign currencies.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the impact of the national minimum wage on job levels. [21046]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his Ministerial colleagues have received a number of representations on this issue. The Government has asked the Low Pay Commission to take into account the wider effects on the economy in making its recommendations on the level and coverage of the minimum wage.

  Pension Fund Contributions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the current scales of tax relief available for pension fund contributions. [21343]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: We intend to maintain a framework for the tax treatment of pension arrangements that will encourage people to save for their retirement.

  Savings
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's target for the savings ratio by private investors; and by what date. [21341]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: Although there is no explicit target for the saving ratio, the Government want to encourage long-term
  246
  savings and investment. The pursuit of economic stability is central to this goal. Moreover, the introduction of the new Individual Savings Accounts in 1999 will spread the savings culture by bringing the benefits of existing tax-favoured provision to a much wider population of savers.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the letters to hon. Members from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury have been signed by Ola Solaja on her behalf since 2 May. [21420]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received some 2,250 letters from hon. Members since 2 May. A breakdown of replies signed by my Private Secretaries on my behalf is not available. I approve the text of all letters to Members before they are sent.

  Financial Services (Complaints and Compensation)
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for reform of complaints handling and compensation schemes for financial services. [22011]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Financial Services Authority has today published consultation documents on proposed arrangements for complaints-handling and compensation. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  We intend that there should be a single independent Financial Services Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will deal with unresolved complaints against all firms authorised by the Financial Services Authority.

  The legislative framework for the Financial Services Ombudsman and for a single financial services compensation scheme will be included in the draft legislation to reform the regulatory system that the Government plan to publish for consultation next summer.

  Consultation (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Code of Practice on consultation, mentioned in paragraph 5.1 of his Pre-Budget Report, will be published. [21875]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to report that the Code of Practice on consultation, which will apply to consultations on tax policy in connection with the Budget and Finance Bill by the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Treasury, has today been made available on each of the departments' Internet sites. Printed versions will be available on request and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications have been made to the national lottery distributing bodies to date from organisations in the Glasgow, Govan constituency; how
  247
  many organisations from the Govan constituency have been (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in their applications; and if he will make a statement. [20750]

  Mr. Banks
  From the information available, organisations in the Glasgow, Govan constituency have made 164 formal applications to the Lottery distributing bodies of which 59 have been successful, 85 unsuccessful and 20 are awaiting a final decision. The table shows the breakdown of applications by distributing body. The 59 successful awards have a total value of £4,763.715.

  Decisions on applications are a matter for the distributing bodies. Information on unsuccessful applications is not kept by the Department. Information on successful Lottery applicants can be found on the Department's website www.lottery,culture.gov.uk

  Distributing body

  Total applications

  Successful (i.e. award given)

  Unsuccessful

  Awaiting final decision

  Scottish Arts Council

  33

  21

  10

  2

  Scottish Sports Council

  4

  3(1 of which was subsequently not taken up by applicant)

  0

  1

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  7

  5

  1

  1

  National Lottery Charities Board

  120

  30

  74

  16

  Millennium Commission

  1—

  0

  1—

  1—

  Total

  164

  59

  85

  20

  1 It has not been possible for the Millennium Commission to provide the information on unsuccessful application, due to the way in which its records have been compiled. The Commission has awarded grant totalling £62,924,410 to four capital projects based in Glasgow. The Commission has also made a further award of £564,000 under the Millennium Awards to Individuals scheme.

  Tourist Attractions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the top 20 tourist attractions in the United Kingdom. [20910]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The information requested is as follows:

  Top 20 tourist attractions in the UK

  Attractions

  Number

  1. Blackpool Pleasure Beach

  7,500,000

  2. British Museum, London

  6,228,275

  3. National Gallery, London

  5,000,000

  4. Palace Pier, Brighton

  4,250,000

  5. Alton Towers, Staffordshire

  2,749,000

  6. Madame Tussaud's, London

  2,715,000

  7. Tower of London

  2,539,272

  8. Westminster Abbey

  2,500,000

  9. Eastbourne Pier

  2,300,000

  10. York Minster

  2,200,000

  11. Tate Gallery, London

  2,002,000

  12. St. Paul's Cathedral

  2,000,000

  12. Pleasureland, Southport

  2,000,000

  14. Chessington World of Adventures

  1,700,000

  14. Canterbury Cathedral

  1,700,000

  16. Natural History Museum, London

  1,607,255

  17. Science Museum, London

  1,548,286

  18. Legoland, Windsor

  1,420,511

  248

  Top 20 tourist attractions in the UK

  Attractions

  Number

  19. Pleasure Beach, Great Yarmouth

  1,400,000

  20. Frontierland, Morecambe

  1,300,000

  20. Victoria and Albert Museum, London

  1,300,000

  Note:

  Inevitably some of the above figures are estimates.

  The above table does not include sporting, artistic and exhibition venues.

  Source:

  Sightseeing in the UK 1996 published by the English Tourist Board, Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Scottish Tourist Board and Wales Tourist Board.

  British Museum
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance he has made available to the British Museum in 1997–98 and 1998–99 to enable it to avoid introducing admission charges in terms of(a) grant and (b) tax treatment; and if such arrangements are to be extended to other museums. [21114]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am holding in reserve within my Department's budget for 1998–99 £1 million for the British Museum. The purpose of this provision is to help the Trustees of the British Museum to avoid irrevocable decisions on the introduction of admission charges pending the outcome of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. Before this reserve can be accessed the British Museum will have to demonstrate their need for special provision, having looked at other sources of income. Payment of any advance grant would be subject to the following conditions:(i) that the Museum prepares an action plan, subject to approval by my Department, for generating more income to supplement its grant-in-aid; for achieving significant efficiency savings; and for improvements to the management of the Museum's finances;
  (ii) that the Museum succeeds in eliminating the balance of its projected deficit for the financial year 1998–99; and
  (iii) that the Trustees of the British Museum maintain free entry throughout 1998.

  I am also holding in reserve £300,000 for 1998–99 for the Tate Gallery to help them to maintain free entry pending the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. Before this reserve can be accessed the Tate Gallery will have to demonstrate the need for this extra grant, having explored other sources of income.

  No special tax measures or tax treatment are being offered to either the British Museum or the Tate Gallery.

  In addition, I was able to announce to the House on 8 December the establishment by the Heritage Lottery Fund of an Access Fund, initially of £5 million per year, to enable all museums and galleries to bid for resources to help improve access to their collections in a variety of different ways.

  Sportsmark Scheme
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to extend the Sportsmark scheme to primary schools. [21018]
  249
  Mr. Chris Smith
  We have no plans to extend the Sportsmark scheme to primary schools. However, the English Sports Council are currently working on plans to introduce an Activity award for primary schools.

  Tourism
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the scope and purpose of his Department's plan for tourism; and when it will be published. [21017]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I aim to publish a comprehensive and detailed tourism strategy next summer, spelling out how the Government intend to create and sustain an improved framework within which tourism, hospitality and leisure can flourish.

  Lottery White Paper
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many responses he has received to the White Paper, "The People's Lottery"; and if he will make a statement. [22125]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have received responses from nearly 500 organisations and over 90 individuals. The vast majority of these welcomed the Government's proposals for reforming the National Lottery. I have today placed a report summarising the main themes emerging from these responses in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The White Paper announced the creation of a new Lottery good cause for health, education and the environment and of the National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts. The National Lottery Bill, which was published on 4 December, gives effect to these proposals. The White Paper also committed £1 billion from the Lottery to the new good cause and NESTA by 2001. These funds will be split as follows:
  £300 million for training teachers and librarians in the use of new technology, including £50 million for digitising educational and learning materials held in schools and libraries;
  £300 million for out of school hours activities, with a further £100 million after 2001. £200 million will help local communities set up out of school childcare clubs across the UK, to meet the needs of working parents. £180 million will provide out of school hours learning activities in half of all secondary schools and a quarter of all primary schools. A further £20 million will fund integrated schemes offering childcare and learning;
  £200 million for healthy living centres, with a further £100 million after 2001, to establish a network designed to serve around 20 per cent. of the population; and
  £200 million as an endowment for NESTA, sufficient to provide an income which will move NESTA into the top ten grant giving endowment funds in the UK.

  Public Expenditure
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what decisions he has taken on public expenditure allocations for 1998–99. [22126]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department's spending plans for next year are listed in the table. I am today writing to the Chairmen of funded bodies informing them of the grant they can expect next year.
  250
  I have generally chosen to maintain settlements at the level planned last year. Some adjustments have however had to be made to reflect the costs to the UK of increases in related European Community budget programmes and to reflect transfers of responsibility to and from my Department. My objective throughout has been to ensure that the bodies I fund can continue to deliver their existing services within the total provision for expenditure that was announced last year.

  These allocations do not necessarily reflect my longer term priorities. These will be set in the Departmental Spending Review and will provide the foundation for a different approach to resource allocation in the future. I look forward to working with our funded bodies to make this a reality.

  Culture, Media and Sport: 1998–99 allocations

  £000

  Museums and Galleries

  207,599

  British Museum

  32,921

  Natural History Museum

  26,960

  Imperial War Museum

  10,573

  National Gallery

  17,889

  National Maritime Museum

  10,184

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  12,696

  National Portrait Gallery

  4,697

  National Museum of Science and Industry

  20,281

  Tate Gallery

  18,218

  Victoria and Albert Museum

  29,127

  Wallace Collection

  1,816

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  2,178

  Museum of London

  4,210

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  567

  Horniman Museum

  3,144

  Geffrye Museum

  1,047

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  8,941

  Government Indemnity Scheme

  150

  Assets accepted in lieu of tax

  2,000

  Libraries

  89,720

  British Library grant in aid

  80,450

  British Library St. Pancras Project

  349

  Wolfson Public Libraries Improvement Scheme

  2,000

  Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts

  1,039

  Public Lending Right

  4,903

  Public Library Development Incentive Scheme

  225

  Library and Information Commission

  430

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  200

  National Manuscripts Conservation Trust

  70

  Royal Geographic Society

  54

  Arts

  193,365

  Arts Council of England

  184,600

  Crafts Council

  3,200

  National Heritage Arts Sponsorship Scheme

  5,050

  Government Art Collection

  351

  Other arts programmes

  164

  Sports

  49,434

  English Sports Council

  33,289

  United Kingdom Sports Council

  11,600

  Business Sponsorship Incentive Scheme

  3,200

  Children's play

  400

  Football Licensing Authority

  896

  British Chess Federation

  49

  Historic Buildings, Monuments and Sites

  141,817

  Occupied Royal Palaces and other Historic Buildings

  18,714

  English Heritage

  102,150

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  2,000

  251

  Culture, Media and Sport: 1998–99 allocations

  £000

  Royal Commission for Historical Monuments in England

  10,710

  Royal Armouries

  3,723

  Churches Conservation Trust

  2,479

  Royal Fine Art Commission

  705

  Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust

  300

  Other heritage institutions and support

  1,036

  Historic Royal Palaces

  4,020

  Royal Parks Agency

  20,950

  Tourism

  44,749

  British Tourist Authority

  35,000

  English Tourist Board

  9,732

  Other support

  17

  Broadcasting and Media

  98,670

  Welsh Fourth Channel Authority (S4C)

  75,127

  British Film Institute

  15,100

  National Film and Television School

  2,100

  British Screen Finance Ltd.

  2,000

  European Film Co-production

  2,000

  British Film Commission

  850

  Eureka and Audiovisual Observatory

  393

  Broadcasting Standards Commission

  1,971

  Other

  -871

  Administration (including OFLOT), Research and Contingencies

  25,383

  ERDF

  36,000

  Culture, Media and Sport Total

  911,707

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Judicial Appointments Commission
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what factors underlay his decision not to proceed with the establishment of a judicial appointments commission. [20377]

  Mr. Hoon
  In the light of the other substantial priorities facing the Department, including the very heavy workload connected with legal aid and civil justice reforms, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has decided not to proceed with further work on a possible Commission but to concentrate on making those changes he regards as most urgent in the existing system. He has decided to act directly to improve the openness. flexibility and effectiveness of the judicial appointments process. New measures include the presentation of an annual report to Parliament on the operation of the judicial appointments system (the first report will cover the period 1998–99).

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates serve on the active list of(a) the Harwich and (b) the Tendring petty sessional divisions. [20586]
  252
  Mr. Hoon
  16 magistrates serve on the active list of the Harwich Petty Sessional Division and 30 magistrates serve on the Tendring Petty Sessional Division.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many magistrates serve on the active list of the Colchester Petty Sessional Division; how many live within the Division; and how many live in the Colchester constituency. [20588]

  Mr. Hoon
  There are 84 magistrates on the active list of the Colchester Petty Sessional Division. 78 live within the Division; 34 live within the area of the Colchester constituency and a further 25 live within the area of the adjacent constituency of North Essex.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations his Department has had on the amalgamation of the Colchester, Harwich and Tendring magistrates benches; and if he will make a statement. [20587]

  Mr. Hoon
  My Department has not undertaken, or taken part in, any consultations on the proposed amalgamation.

  Section 33 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 provides that a magistrates' courts committee may submit to the Lord Chancellor a draft order proposing changes to the petty sessional divisions, or PSDs, in its area. Section 34 of the Act requires a magistrates' courts committee to consult all the magistrates of the affected benches and relevant paying authority, before the Lord Chancellor may consider any application for change under section 33.

  I can confirm that an application to reorganise a number of PSDs in Essex, including Colchester, Harwich and Tendring, was received from Essex MCC on 17 November 1997.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are his Department's proposals in respect of the Equal Opportunities Commission's grant-in-aid budget for 1998. [20998]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Grant-in-Aid for the Equal Opportunities Commission in 1998–99 will be set out in the DfEE Departmental Report, to be published in the new year.

  New Deal
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the advantages of extending the New Deal programme to those economically inactive individuals who are not officially registered as unemployed. [21317]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Both the New Deal for Lone Parents and the New Deal for Disabled People offer support to people who have been economically inactive. We will evaluate the impact of our welfare to work programmes and keep their coverage under review.
  253

  International Labour Conference
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for publishing the White Paper on the instruments adopted at the 83rd Session of the International Labour Conference and the instrument for the amendment of the ILO Constitution adopted at the 85th Session of the International Labour Conference. [22018]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I have today published a White Paper entitled "International Labour Conference", copies of which have been placed in Library.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department's estimates of the total costs of resolving the millennium compliance problem include costs relating to the embedded chip problem; and if he will make a statement. [21562]

  Dr. Howells
  Yes. Departmental costings relating to the embedded chip issue were itemised in the reply on 4 November 1997,Official Report, column 163, given to the hon. Member on our estimates of the total cost of addressing the millennium compliance problem.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what millennium compliance problems have occurred to date in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) other public bodies; and if he will make a statement. [21561]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department has anticipated the potential for problems where its systems hold data that include dates beyond Year 2000 and/or where such systems manipulate these dates. All such systems have been identified and timely corrective action is being taken. No other specific problems have been identified either within the Department, its agency or the Non Departmental Public Bodies responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  Unemployment Forecasts
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish his Department's internal forecasts of the level of UK unemployment over the next two years; and if he will make a statement. [21355]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The DfEE does not forecast unemployment. The current planning assumption, set out in "Securing Britain's long-term economic future"Pre-Budget Report November 1997, is for unemployment to remain flat at its October 1997 level.

  Beef (Schools)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice he has issued to local education authorities about the inclusion of beef on the school menu. [21605]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In March 1996, the Department issued to all schools and local education authorities in England a statement made by the then Secretary of State for Health, together with a statement by the Spongiform 254
  Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC), about the implications of the evidence on BSE for children and for school meal provision.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics his Department collates as to which countries supply beef to British schools. [21602]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of schools which have removed beef from the menu. [21604]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The content of school meals is a matter for individual local education authorities and grant-maintained schools, and the Department has not collected information on or made estimates of the number of schools not serving beef.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Women's Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the level of overcrowding in women's prisons. [19285]

  Ms Quin
  There are two measures of overcrowding: prisoners held two to a cell designed for one and prisoners held above the designated uncrowned capacity.

  158 female prisoners were held two to a cell designed for one at four prisons at the end of October 1997: 60 at Cookham Wood; 56 at Low Newton; 10 at Risley; and 32 at Winchester.

  The Prison Service also uses the concept of Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA) to define the uncrowded capacity of an establishment. Expressing the actual population as a percentage of the CNA can be used as a measure of occupancy. This measure takes into account all types of accommodation including single and double cells, rooms and dormitories.

  The table shows the CNA of female establishments and the population on 28 November 1997.

  Prison

  CNA

  Prisoners

  Percentage

  Askham Grange

  130

  130

  100

  Brockhill

  159

  116

  73

  Bullwood Hall

  126

  138

  110

  Cookham Wood

  120

  150

  125

  Drake Hall

  281

  275

  98

  Durham (Female Unit)

  47

  45

  96

  East Sutton Park

  94

  99

  105

  Eastwood Park

  135

  122

  90

  Foston Hall

  150

  132

  88

  High Point (Female Unit)

  207

  201

  97

  Holloway

  517

  517

  100

  Low Newton (Female Unit)

  49

  71

  145

  New Hall

  327

  362

  90

  Risley (Female Unit)

  155

  158

  101

  Styal

  284

  285

  100

  Winchester (Female Unit)

  82

  80

  97

  Total

  2,863

  2,881

  101

  255

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 15 to 17 year old offenders received a sentence of(a) 15 months and (b) 21 months detention in a young offender institution in the most recent year for which figures are available. [20295]

  Mr. Michael
  In 1996, a total of 1,760 offenders aged 15, 16 or 17 were sentenced to detention in a young offender institution. Of these, 131 (7 per cent.) received a sentence of 15 months and 103 (6 per cent.) received a sentence of 21 months.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications have been made for a licence to research and trial the medical use of cannabis or cannabis derivatives; and on what date each licence was granted; [20629]

  (2) if he will list the individuals and organisations which have current licences from his Department permitting the research and trial of cannabis or cannabis derivatives for medical use. [20628]

  Mr. George Howarth
  According to existing records, a total of twenty two applications have been made for cannabis related research. All were granted and nineteen are currently valid. Of these, six are directly concerned with medical research. The licensee and date of grant of those six are as follows:

  Dr. G. M. Stern, Middlesex Hospital—11 August 1988

  Dr. P. Taylor, Bethlehem Hospital—27 February 1989

  Dr. A. Holdcroft, Hammersmith Hospital—1 December 1994

  Dr. R. Pertwee, University of Aberdeen—7 April 1974

  Professor A. Smith, University of Oxford—1 August 1993

  Mr. D. Todd, James Paget Hospital—1 May 1995.

  The first three of these licences have now lapsed; the others remain in force.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 13 November 1997,Official Report, column 645, for what reasons immigration detainees are held in prison establishments other than Haslar and Rochester; what arrangements are made to separate immigration detainees from convicted prisoners; what extra (a) facilities and (b) provision is made for immigration detainees above that for convicted prisoners; and what language interpretation is provided for immigration detainees who have limited command of the English language. [20957]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under an agreement with the Prison Service, a number of places are made available for immigration detainees in Prison Service establishments other than Haslar and Rochester.
  256
  Detainees are normally held either together in a separate block of living accommodation or with unconvicted prisoners. They are treated in the same way as unconvicted prisoners for purposes of prison management, and as such have the special rights and privileges under Prison rules and instructions which flow from unconvicted status.

  Translation services are available under a contract administered by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; every establishment has access to Language Line, a 24-hour telephone interpreting service, which is subsidised centrally; a list of accredited interpreters is available from the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, which is administered by the Institute of Linguists; establishments have been advised to maintain a list of members of staff and prisoners who can speak foreign languages and of any community services available locally. A number of foreign language documents, issued centrally by the Prison Service, are made available to non-English speaking prisoners and detainees explaining prison rules and procedures.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) deportation orders have been signed by Ministers and (b) removals have taken place since 1 May. [20887]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of deportation orders signed by Ministers between 1 May 1997 and 30 September 1997 was 468. Information on removals during the same period is given in table 1.

  Table 1: Persons removed from the United Kingdom, 1 May 1997 to 30 September 1997

  Number of persons removed1

  Removal as a result of deportation action2,3

  648

  Removal as a result of illegal entry action2,4

  2,015

  Removal under port procedures2

  10,574

  Total removals

  13,237

  1 These figures are provisional.

  2 Action may have been initiated in an earlier period.

  3 Includes persons who departed voluntarily after deportation action had been initiated.

  4 Includes persons who departed voluntarily after illegal entry action had been initiated.

  Young People in Care
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young people in each of the last three years have been remanded in the care of the local authority by courts. [20691]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the year ending 31 March 1996, the latest for which figures are available, 1,600 young people were remanded, or committed for trial or sentence, into the care of local authorities in England. The equivalent figures for the years ending 31 March 1995 and 1994 were 1,530 and 1,440 respectively.
  257
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many young people presently remanded in the care of the local authority are(a) excluded from school and (b) not excluded from school; [20690]

  (2) what is the average number of hours per week of education undertaken by young people who are remanded in the care of the local authority who are (a) excluded from school and (b) not excluded from school. [20688]

  Mr. Michael
  Information on the education of those remanded in the care of the local authority is not collected centrally but I have obtained some related information from the Department for Education and Employment and the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED).

  Surveys indicate that children in local authority care are more likely to be excluded from school than other groups, but there is no information on how many exclusions involve those remanded into care.

  School attendance at each Key Stage

  Per cent.

  Key Stage 1 (4–7 years)

  Key Stage 2 (7–11 years)

  Key Stage 3 (11–14 years)

  Key Stage 4 (14–16 years)

  Total

  Permanently excluded1

  —

  0.6

  2.1

  3.9

  1.9

  Fixed term exclusion1,2

  —

  0.3

  3.0

  2.8

  1.7

  attendance

  2.1

  1.6

  7.3

  18.9

  8.4

  problem indicated

  87.1

  92.5

  82.4

  66.9

  81.2

  information given

  10.8

  5.0

  5.2

  7.5

  6.7

  Total numbers

  194

  322

  329

  360

  1,205

  1 Numbers relate to children excluded at the time of the census. Information was not collected about previous experience of exclusion.

  2 When this study was undertaken, fixed term exclusion applied for a maximum of 15 days in any one term. Since legislative changes introduced in 1997 fixed term exclusion can now extend to 45 days in any one year.

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of British-based stallions commanding a fee of £10,000 or more. [21180]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The estimated number of British-based stallions commanding a fee of £10,000 or more is 19.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will estimate the ratio of overall income to overall costs of race horse owners in the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan; [21187]

  (2) if he will publish the percentage of keep and training fees recoverable through prize money in the principle horse racing countries. [21190]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The percentage of keep and training fees recoverable through prize money in the principal horse racing nations is estimated as follows:

  Per cent.

  Hong Kong

  149

  Japan

  83

  South Africa

  64

  Canada

  59

  Italy

  57

  France

  49

  United States of America

  47

  Germany

  41

  Australia

  38

  New Zealand

  34

  258
  Most young people remanded will go into residential care with on-site schools and will not be excluded from school. Children not excluded from school will be subject to a standard school week (24 hours for those aged 14 to 16, Key stage 4).

  Where a child is permanently excluded from school the Local Education Authority (LEA) is under a duty to provide suitable education. LEAS generally meet this duty through education in a pupil referral unit, which may be full or part-time, or by arranging home tuition for an average of around five hours a week.

  A 1995 report "The Education of Children who are looked after by the Local Authority" produced jointly by the Department of Health Social Services Inspectorate and OFSTED examined the school attendance records of a broad group of 1,205 children, looked after in local authority foster and residential care. Information from that report appears in the following table.

  Per cent.

  Britain

  24

  Ireland

  19

  Source:

  International Federation of Horseracing Authorities, October 1997.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the overall costs and overall income of racing horse owners in the Untied Kingdom. [21186]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The British Horseracing Board estimate the overall costs and overall income of racing horse owners in the United Kingdom as follows:

  (a) overall costs = £202 million (including entry fees)

  (b) overall income = £49 million (total prize money less owners' entry fees and before any deductions to trainers, jockeys etc).

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the costs and returns to the owner of the a horse winning three Class E races. [21181]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The British Horseracing Board estimate the costs and returns to the owner of a horse winning three Class E races as:

  (a) Costs = £15,200

  (b) Returns = £12,600.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the effects of replacing betting duty on turnover with charging duty on gross profits. [21184]
  259
  Mr. George Howarth
  This matter is properly for my Treasury colleagues. However, they tell me that general betting duty on stakes yielded £453 million in 1996–97; the yield of a duty on gross profit would depend on the rate charged and gross profit levels.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate Britain's place in the world rankings of returns to race horse owners. [21191]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Britain's place in the world rankings of percentage returns to racehorse owners is 36th of 41.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the A1 Maktoum family to discuss the future of racing and the bloodstock industry. [21307]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We understand that there are plans for the British Horseracing Board to meet Sheikh Mohammed in the near future.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the economic effects of(a) doubling the returns and (b) halving the losses of race horse owners. [21188]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The British Horseracing Board estimate the economic effects of doubling the returns of racehorse owners to be:

  New owners: 1,945

  New horses: 2,867

  Income: £132.3 million

  Employment opportunities: 7,050.

  No research has been carried out on the effect of halving the losses of racehorse owners.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of jobs in(a) motor racing and (b) the racing and bloodstock industries, excluding betting. [21179]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is estimated that there are some 50,000 jobs in the United Kingdom motorsports industry, including support services, and 59,300 jobs (31,600 direct and 27,700 indirect) in the racing and bloodstock industries, excluding betting.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the percentages and amounts of betting duty levy put to prize money during each of the past 20 years. [21183]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The following table provided by the Horserace Betting Levy Board, sets out the annual contributions to prize money from the statutory levy on off-course betting.

  General Betting Duty, currently 6.7 per cent. on off-course stakes, is paid to the Exchequer.

  Year

  Levy yield (Bookmakers) £ million

  Prize money £ million

  Yield Percentage

  1977–78

  9.4

  6.0

  63.8

  1978–79

  12.3

  7.7

  62.6

  1979–80

  14.7

  9.2

  62.6

  1980–81

  16.4

  9.7

  59.1

  1981–82

  17.0

  9.5

  55.9

  260

  Year

  Levy yield (Bookmakers) £ million

  Prize money £ million

  Yield Percentage

  1982–83

  19.1

  10.1

  52.9

  1983–84

  18.4

  10.0

  54.3

  1984–85

  20.0

  10.2

  51.0

  1985–86

  21.1

  9.8

  46.4

  1986–87

  24.7

  11.1

  44.9

  1987–88

  27.9

  11.6

  41.6

  1988–89

  33.7

  13.8

  40.9

  1989–90

  35.4

  18.6

  52.5

  1990–91

  37.5

  21.9

  58.4

  1991–92

  36.0

  22.1

  61.4

  1992–93

  46.9

  20.6

  43.9

  1993–94

  50.9

  25.5

  50.1

  1994–95

  50.7

  27.9

  55.0

  1995–96

  48.0

  30.9

  64.4

  1996–97

  54.0

  30.1

  55.7

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the increase in prize money required to(a) double the returns and (b) halve the losses of race horse owners. [21189]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The British Horseracing Board estimate the increase in prize money required to:

  double the returns to racehorse owners would be £60 million;

  halve the losses of racehorse owners would be £97 million.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the returns to race horse owners in(a) Britain, (b) Poland, (c) Mauritius and (d) Greece. [21192]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The estimated returns to race horse owners are as follows:

  (a) Britain = 24 per cent.

  (b) Poland = 73 per cent.

  (c) Mauritius = 80 per cent.

  (d) Greece = 109 per cent.

  Source: International Federation of Horseracing Authorities, October 1997.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of horses in training for racing. [21182]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The number of horses in training for racing is estimated at 12,279 (average figure for 1996).

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review gambling legislation and taxation. [21185]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no immediate plans to review the gambling legislation.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reviews gaming and betting duties each year in the run up to the Budget.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the potential public order consequences of the year 2000 problem. [20973]
  261
  Mr. Michael
  It is for individual chief police officers to ensure that their computer controlled systems are Year 2000 compliant. They are currently assessing the scale of the problem and taking action where appropriate, with help from the Police Information Technology Organisation. Police forces are also pursuing Year 2000 compliance with other bodies responsible for systems whose failure might have policing implications. Failure to comply could seriously affect police forces' functioning and could lead to additional calls on their services in a range of areas.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what millennium compliance have occurred to date in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) other public bodies; and if he will make a statement. [21563]

  Mr. Straw
  A small number of millennium compliance problems have occurred in my Department affecting management information, statistical and payroll data. These problems have been quickly resolved. No problems have occurred in either agencies or other public bodies.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department's estimates of the total costs of resolving the millennium compliance problem include costs relating to the embedded chip problem; and if he will make a statement. [21564]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department's estimates of the total costs of resolving the millennium compliance problem do include costs relating to the embedded chip problem.

  Racial Violence
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) Thames Valley Police and (b) others about the attack on a Sikh boy in Slough on 24 November; what steps he is taking to combat racist attacks; and if he will make a statement. [21193]

  Mr. Michael
  I was extremely concerned to hear about this incident and I hope that the child and his family are recovering from what must have been an extremely frightening and distressing experience. I understand that an investigation by Thames Valley Police is under way and the family can be assured that the police are treating this matter very seriously.

  I have so far received three letters from the Sikh community in the Slough area concerning this attack.

  The Government condemn all acts of racial violence and harassment. This is why we announced in the Crime and Disorder Bill new measures to tackle racially motivated crime. The offences will correspond to the existing main offences which deal with violence against the person and offences of harassment. The Government believe that the introduction of specific racial offences will send out a strong message that racial violence and harassment are unacceptable, and will act as a forceful deterrent. Specific offences will also encourage the victims of crimes to report them to the police, and ensure that a higher priority is given to the identification of the racial element, both in the gathering of evidence and in the prosecution of the case.
  262
  The Racial Incidents Standing Committee (RISC) has been created to take forward work between various agencies concerned with racial incidents. The group comprises the Home Office and other Government Departments, agencies from the criminal justice system, the Commission for Racial Equality and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. RISC will tackle issues such as the effectiveness of multi-agency panels in dealing with racial incidents; the implications of the new offences in the Crime and Disorder Bill; and how racial incidents are policed.

  On 31 July, my right hon. Friend also announced an inquiry into the matters arising from the death of Stephen Lawrence in order to identify the lessons to be learnt for the investigation and prosecution of racially motivated crimes.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Certificate of Designation for Huntingdon Life Sciences was amended on 23 May to allow the breeding and supply to other licensed establishments. [21253]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I confirmed in my reply to the hon. Member on 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 439, that the Certificate of Designation was amended on 23 May to allow the breeding of dogs.

  Under the terms of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, subsection 10(3)(a), dogs used in scientific procedures must normally be obtained from designated breeding establishments. There are no restrictions under the Act which prevent a designated breeding establishment from providing dogs to other establishments.

  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the temporary accommodation in which breeding beagles are housed at Huntingdon Life Sciences at Occold meets the recommendations of the code of practice for the housing and care of animals in designated breeding and supplying establishments when the licence was granted; [21037]

  (2) for what reasons the Certificate of Designation for Huntingdon Life Sciences was amended to allow the breeding of dogs before planning approval to build kennels had been granted. [21036]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The company first discussed the idea of breeding dogs with the Home Office in late 1996. The proposed accommodation had not been built, equipped or staffed specifically for the breeding of laboratory dogs. In some minor ways it did not, at that stage, meet all the requirements of the code of practice for the housing and care of animals in designated breeding and supplying establishments. The Inspectorate asked that some changes be made to the facilities in which the dogs were to be housed to meet the requirements of the code of practice. These changes were completed before the formal application for an amendment to the Certificate of Designation to allow breeding was submitted.

  The Certificate holder submitted the formal application in May. By this time, the conditions met the requirements of the code of practice. The inspector for this establishment and another inspector with a specialist interest in breeding establishments had thoroughly

  263
  inspected the accommodation and assessed the proposed staffing arrangements. There was no legitimate reasons to refuse the application.

  Should it receive planning permission, the new dog breeding facility planned by the company will exceed the minimum requirements of the code of practice and will also allow the company to expand its breeding colony. This is currently being limited by the Home Office to a size which is appropriate for the current accommodation and facilities.

  Perverting the Course of Justice
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted for perverting the course of justice and given a custodial sentence in each year since 1987; and what was the average length of sentence. [21104]

  Mr. Michael
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of offenders convicted of offences of perverting the course of justice1 by result, 1987 to 1996

  England and Wales

  Year

  Total convictions

  Total given a custodial sentence

  Average sentence length (months)

  1987

  337

  164

  10.2

  1988

  494

  236

  10.3

  1989

  555

  221

  10.0

  1990

  678

  256

  8.0

  1991

  704

  280

  7.8

  1992

  816

  306

  9.1

  1993

  842

  372

  8.0

  1994

  1,132

  511

  7.7

  1995

  1,464

  744

  6.5

  1996

  1,775

  835

  7.0

  1 The common law offence of perverting, or attempting to pervert the course of justice and, as from 1995, Section 51(1)—"Intimidating a juror or witness or person assisting in investigation of offence", and Section 51 (2)—"Harming or threatening to harm a witness, juror or person assisting in investigation" of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

  Video Recordings
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to make changes to the authority responsible for making arrangements for the classification of video works under the Video Recordings Act 1984. [21667]

  Mr. Straw
  I have today laid before both Houses details of my proposal to designate Mr. Andreas Whittam Smith under section 4(4) of the Video Recordings Act 1984. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) earlier today announced that Mr. Whittam Smith will be appointed as their President from 1 January 1998, and I propose to designate him, in that capacity, to replace the Earl of Harewood and Lord Birkett of Ulverston. The designation itself will come into force in accordance with the procedures laid down in section 5 of the Act. This requires that the particulars of the proposal should lie before both Houses of Parliament for 40 days before the designation can be made, provided that neither House resolves during that period that the designation should not be made.
  264
  I have placed in the Library a copy of my designation proposal and the text of a letter I intend to send at the time of designation to Mr. Whittam Smith.

  Mr. Whittam Smith has impressed me with his understanding of the issues relating to the responsibility of a designated authority and I expect him to provide strong leadership for the BBFC into the next millennium.

  Immigration Policy
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the review of immigration policy on carer cases will be completed. [21533]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This review is nearing completion.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were made for the vacant CRE Commission posts; and how many persons were shortlisted. [21871]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A total of 1,029 applications were received for six posts. Twenty-one candidates were shortlisted for interview. I expect to make a decision on appointments shortly.

  Boundary Commission
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Boundary Commission has to conduct an interim review of parliamentary constituencies in England. [22015]

  Mr. Straw
  The Commission has informed me that it intends to consider making a report on parliamentary constituencies in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Surrey, in Greater London and Surrey, and also in Greater London. The Commission intends to commence forthwith an interim review of parliamentary constituencies in each of those areas.

PRIME MINISTER

  Hospitality Costs
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the official functions he has hosted at 10 Downing Street since taking office indicating the number of guests who attended each event, the cost of each event and the total expenditure on such events over the period; and how many(a) functions and (b) guests attending each there were in the previous year and at what cost. [18178]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 November 1997]: I have hosted 26 official functions, details of which are as follows:

  Date

  Number of persons

  7 May

  25

  13 May

  120

  8 June

  5

  11 June

  3

  12 June

  5

  14 June

  25

  26 June

  4

  15 July

  13

  265

  Date

  Number of persons

  17 July

  7

  22 July

  104

  24 July

  3

  30 July

  186

  2 September

  4

  4 September

  50

  17 September

  4

  18 September

  2

  24 September

  24

  7 October

  10

  15 October

  200

  20 October

  210

  21 October

  5

  4 November

  12

  13 November

  2

  10 December

  210

  11 December

  14

  15 December

  18

  The figures include General Receptions, working lunches and dinners as well as other functions.

  Total costs are not available in the form requested; nor are details of functions and numbers of guests in the year leading up to 2 May. However, for expenditure on official hospitality within my Department I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 5 December 1997, Official Report, columns 376–77.

  Duty Free Shopping
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans the Government has during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union to secure the survey promised by the Commission of the potential number of job losses that will arise from the ending of the trade in duty free goods. [21165]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: The Government have no plans to use the UK presidency to press for a Commission survey. However, the UK will not stand in the way of any proposal for a Commission study particularly if this were to also examine the nature of any successor regime to duty free.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on what was agreed at the Luxembourg European Council on the application of the Structural Funds to sparsely populated areas. [21801]

  The Prime Minister
  Although an earlier draft of the Council Conclusions contained a reference to sparsely populated areas, the text finally agreed did not. Several Member States argued for a less extensive passage on the Structural and Cohesion Funds on the grounds that decisions are not needed before the Commission produce detailed proposals. I regret any confusion about this resulting from my answer to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), on 15 December 1997,Official Report, column 29.

  Government Receptions
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Prime Minister what criteria determine who is included on guest lists for Government receptions at 10 Downing Street. [21339]
  266
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 17 December 1997]: If the Reception has a particular theme, such as health, then the draft guest list is submitted by the Government Department concerned. For a "General" Reception, suggestions for draft guest lists are submitted from Government Departments, Ministers and members of the public.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Helms-Burton Legislation
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government intends to take to persuade the United States of America to repeal the Helms-Burton legislation. [21316]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We, along with our EU partners, take every opportunity to make it clear to the United States of America our opposition to the Helms-Burton Act.

  Turkey
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the earliest date on which Turkey may be admitted as a full member of the EU; and if he will make a statement. [21312]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Turkey's application to join the EU will be judged on its merits and according to objective criteria, as will those of all other applicants. Turkey's progress towards EU membership will depend on the pace of political and economic reform in Turkey, and on Turkey's commitment to the EU's objectives and values.

  Immigration
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Mr. Mohammid Fazal who has applied for a visa to become a teacher at the Jarim Islamia Rizwia Mosque, Bradford; and what factors underlie the delays in processing his application. [21500]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, sent a letter to my hon. Friend about this case on 17 December.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision will be made on the application for entry clearance by Arshad Khan at Islamabad High Commission, ref. D8342. [21532]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Entry Clearance Officer at Islamabad authorised the issue of a settlement visa to Mr. Khan on 9 December. The Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit wrote to my hon. Friend on 16 December to inform him of this decision.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case of Nasim Akhtar who has applied for a permit to join her husband Mr. Mohammed Iqbal of Mountbatten Court, Bradford; and what factors underlie the delay in processing this application. [21501]
  267
  Mr. Fatchett
  Inquiries made in response to earlier representations from my hon. Friend show that there is no trace of an application from Mrs. Akhtar at the British High Commission at Islamabad.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the application for entry clearance by Mohammed Aurangyeb, Islamabad ref. IMM/D7004, was referred to the Home Office for further inquiries; what is the nature of those inquiries; and when he expects them to be completed and a decision made. [21531]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have asked our High Commission in Islamabad to provide a detailed account of the position. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, will write to my hon. Friend within one week of receiving that account.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of France towards establishing common principles for the licensing of arms exports as part of a European code of conduct. [19869]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have had a number of contacts at Ministerial and Official level with the French and other European Union Governments about a Code of Conduct on arms exports in the lead-up to formal consideration of a Code during the UK's Presidency of the Union in the-first half of 1998.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the approval of an export licence for the supply to the Netherlands of shotgun ammunition intended for use in Bosnia. [21681]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We recently approved the export to The Netherlands of 2,500 rounds of CS gas and target-practice shotgun ammunitions for use in riot-control by Dutch UN armed forces in Bosnia. Given that the ammunition is needed to support peace-keeping activities in Bosnia and that it is important that UN forces in Bosnia, which include British troops, are able to protect themselves, we were glad to be able to approve this export as an exception to our interpretation of the EU arms embargo on the former Yugoslavia. This decision does not affect our continued support of the EU common position on arms exports to the former Yugoslavia.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Motorcycling
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set up a national motorcycle strategy group to discuss the role of motorcycling in an integrated transport policy. [20626]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My noble Friend the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Baroness Hayman, invited representatives of a wide range of groups including motorcyclists, pedestrians, cyclists and environmentalists, to a special seminar on 25 November to discuss the role of motorcycling in integrated transport. This discussion 268
  provided valuable information for us to consider policies on motorcycling in the integrated transport White Paper to be published next year.

  Car Registrations
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to change the month in which new car registration letters are introduced; [20936]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of car registration plates. [20935]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government is proposing that, from March 1999, the age identification letter on vehicle registration plates should change every six months, in March and September. The current R prefix would therefore run until the end of July 1998, and S would run from August 1998 to the end of February 1999.

  The current sequence of age identification letters should therefore expire in September 2001. Following the consultation exercise this year, we are currently discussing with the motor industry and other interested parties, including the police, a new vehicle registration format to run from that date. We intend to make a full announcement concerning the changes in the new year.

  The Government is concerned at the use of non-standard fonts, which cause difficulties for the police. We intend to tighten the existing regulations, and to introduce a standard mandatory number-plate font. My Department is working with the British Standards Institution and representatives of the motor industry towards finalizing an appropriate standard.

  Planning Inspectors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning inspectors are currently in post. [20943]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Chief Planning Inspector, Chris Shepley, is responsible for providing information about the Planning Inspectorate's operational affairs. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from David Hanchet to Mr. Keith Vaz, dated 18 December 1997:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked Chris Shepley to reply to your Question about the number of Planning Inspectors. As he is on leave I am replying on his behalf.
  As at 1 December 1997 there were 377 Planning Inspectors: 236 employed on a salaried basis and 141 who were fee-paid.

  A449 (Safety)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what new proposals have been made by the Highways Agency to improve safety on the A449 between Kidderminster and Worcester; and if he will make a statement. [20759]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.
  269
  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Peter Luff, dated 18 December 1997:
  Glenda Jackson has asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to reply to your question about what new proposals the Agency has to improve safety on the A449 between Kidderminster and Worcester. Lawrie Haynes, the Chief Executive has asked me to reply as he is away from the Office at present.
  As you know, the Highways Agency shares your concern about the continuing accident problem on this section of the A449. The report we mentioned in our letter to you of 12 November was received earlier this month. It recommends a number of measures aimed at improving safety and reducing excessive traffic speed both in the short and longer term.
  Now that we have had an opportunity to consider the report we propose to accept its recommendations for improved turning facilities at selected junctions (similar to those already in place at Hadley Turn), closing some of the gaps in the central reserve and introducing a 50 mph speed limit to be enforced by the introduction of speed cameras. We intend to implement the short term measures quickly for the immediate benefits they will bring.
  As a first step we will discuss these proposals with the Parish Councils concerned early in the new year. We will also ensure that these measures are now worked up in greater detail to enable them to be displayed locally and implemented at the earliest possible opportunity next year.
  Consultants have also been instructed to prepare proposals for the introduction of central reserve safety fencing along those parts of the route where it is not already in place.
  The longer term solution will take more time to develop and statutory procedures will need to be completed. We will write to you again when we have more information to report on this matter.
  In the meantime, I am sure that Tom Barry, Area Manager for the A449, would be happy to explain the proposals in more detail. Tom can be contacted on 0121–678–8366.

  Drivers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the age of eligibility for drivers. [20934]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The prescribed minimum ages for driving different types of vehicle are set out below. However, the law allows lower minimum ages in special circumstances.

  Age

  Vehicle

  16

  Mopeds

  17

  Cars and other small vehicles up to 3.5 tonnes and with up to 8 passenger seats; motorbikes;

  18

  Goods vehicles between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes;

  21

  Goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes and passenger vehicles with more than 8 seats.

  The EC Driving Licence Directive, with which these accord, includes a derogation allowing cars to be driven at 17, rather than 18. There are no plans to change that or any other minimum age.

  Christmas Island
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will evaluate the potential environmental hazards posed by the climatic changes arising from the E1 Niño phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean in respect of the rainfall and hurricane patterns affecting Christmas Island. [20785]
  270
  Mr. Meacher
  During an E1 Nino event, there is a substantial increase in rainfall throughout the year in the central equatorial Pacific region which includes Christmas Island. Since the onset of the current major E1 Niño, rainfall has been well above average in this region since March 1997, and this pattern is expected to continue until E1 Nino declines, probably by the middle of next year.

  As Christmas Island is close to the equator, it is extremely unlikely to experience hurricanes.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles the Royal Train has travelled in the period January 1996 to date when carrying(a) the Queen, (b) the Prince of Wales and (c) other members of the Royal Family; and how many journeys were undertaken by persons in these categories. [21109]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  From 1 January 1996 until 31 March 1997 the Royal Train travelled some 9,500 miles while carrying members of the Royal Family. During this period, nine journeys were undertaken by HM the Queen, 15 journeys by HRH the Prince of Wales, and 12 journeys by other members of the Royal Family.

  From 1 April 1997, the costs of official Royal travel by rail and air have been met by the Royal Household. The arrangements under which grant-in-aid is paid to the Household to support these costs require the Household to prepare an annual report on the use that has been made of the grant-in-aid. Particulars of the journeys made by the Royal Train from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 will be included in the first such annual report which is to be published and placed in the Library of the House within three months of the end of the financial year.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans have been made to cope with the likely increase in the number of cars entering the Greenwich area to visit the Millennium Experience in 2000. [21260]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The vast majority of visitors to the Millennium Experience will travel by public transport using one of a variety of modes that will be available. There will be no car parking at the site, other than for orange badge holders, and a controlled parking zone stretching up to three kilometres from the site. Visitors will be encouraged to leave their cars and join public transport as close to home as possible. Park and ride or park and sail sites will also be available linked to the Experience by rail, bus or boat.

  Leasehold Law
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about consultation on the reform of residential leasehold law. [20968]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are committed to simplifying the current rules restricting the purchase of freeholds by leaseholders and are considering what other aspects of residential leasehold law might be reformed. We hope to issue a consultation paper next spring.
  271

  Road Traffic Act Appeals (Scotland)
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase the 21 day time limit in Scotland for an appeal under section 100 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. [21236]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: Appeals under section 100 are among those to which the Act of Sederunt (Sheriff Court Summary Application Rules) 1993 applies. We have no plans to change these arrangements.

  Road Tax Licences
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many motor vehicle owners have been charged and convicted of not holding a current road tax licence since 1 January. [21380]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of people successfully prosecuted for Vehicle Excise Duty evasion since 1 January is 208,950.

  In addition a further 246,188 evaders paid an out of court settlement.

  £ million

  Latest estimate of total cost (£)

  Expenditure incurred to date (£)

  Expenditure planned for

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  DETR (C)

  2.2

  0.2

  0.5

  1.5

  0.2

  Executive Agencies1

  15.7

  0.095

  2.2

  13.5

  Other Public Bodies2

  n.a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 The figure includes £10.7 million estimated by the Highways Agency (HA) to upgrade traffic control systems and the like. This amount was not included in the statement made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the House of Commons on 27 November 1997 concerning how Government Departments and their Agencies are tackling the Year 2000 Date Change Problem. This covered only the cost of achieving compliance in HA's IT systems (estimated at £4.3 million). HA has not been able to break down expenditure planned between 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  2 Information on Y2000 costs for other public bodies is not maintained centrally.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional financial support will be made available to local authorities to allow them to achieve millennium computer compliance; and if he will make a statement. [21577]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The LGA's views on the pressures faced by authorities, including the costs of millennium compliance, were taken into account in our proposals for local government revenue expenditure in 1998–99.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the total cost to local authorities of achieving millennium computer compliance by 31 December 1999; and if he will make a statement. [21545]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Association (LGA) highlighted the possible level of pressures local authorities might face in the coming financial year in preparing for millennium computer compliance. Their
  272

  West Sussex Structure Plan
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his recent decision regarding the West Sussex Structure Plan; and for what reasons he rejected the proposals made by the Examination in Public. [21777]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No. It would not be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to make a statement in view of the stated intention of West Sussex County Council to seek a judicial review of his decision. The reasons for the decision are set out in the letter accompanying my right hon. Friend's direction to the County Council and I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the computer millennium problem in(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) other public bodies for which he is responsible; what is in each case (i) expenditure incurred to date, (ii) expenditure planned for 1997–98, (iii) expenditure planned for 1998–99 and (iv) expenditure planned for 1999–2000. [21530]

  Angela Eagle
  The figures are provided in the following table:

  estimate was that spending of at least £.100 million will be required in 1998–99, although they recognised that firm estimates are difficult to obtain. The LGA's views on the pressures faced by authorities were taken into account in our proposals for local government revenue expenditure in 1998–99.

  Air Jamaica
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons his Department did not allow Air Jamaica rights to operate passenger flights to Manchester Airport in 1996. [21538]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Air services negotiations between the UK and Jamaica were held in Kingston on 24–26 January 1996. The question of allowing Air Jamaica to operate services to Manchester was discussed at the negotiations, but no agreement was reached. The UK negotiators considered that the conditions which the Jamaican authorities were seeking to attach to the service
  273
  would have damaged wider UK aviation interests. No representations have been made to the UK Government by Air Jamaica since those negotiations.

  Asylum Seekers (Housing)
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to allow local authorities to use their own housing stock for asylum seekers where the authority is under a statutory duty to provide accommodation. [22012]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government is currently undertaking a comprehensive spending review of asylum policy, including a review of the policy for providing support to asylum seekers. We recognise that some local authorities, particularly in London, are experiencing difficulties in accommodating asylum seekers to whom various statutory duties are owed.

  Consequently, in response to a request from the Association of London Government, the Government proposes to make an Order under section 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 which will allow local housing authorities in England and Wales to grant non-secure tenancies and licences in their own housing stock to asylum seekers to whom they owe a statutory duty to provide accommodation.

  Authorities will also be able to let their housing stock to other landlords who intend to sub-let the accommodation, on a temporary basis, to asylum seekers who are owed a duty.

  Additionally, I intend to invite the Housing Corporation to consider relaxing its guidance, in respect of the use of registered social landlords' long-term stock, to allow them some flexibility in supporting local authorities which owe a statutory duty to accommodate asylum seekers.

  These proposals will form temporary arrangements only, and are without prejudice to the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes he proposes to make to regulations governing council tax enforcement, the levy of distress and houses in multiple occupation as a result of the consultation papers issued in September. [22013]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have today put a copy of a paper setting out our conclusions in response to the consultation exercise, and a list of all those that replied, in the House Library. Regulations will be laid before the House early in the New Year.

  Construction Contracts
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to bring into effect the provisions on construction contracts which are contained in Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. [22014]
  274
  Mr. Raynsford
  I gave an assurance when we came into Government that I would implement the previous administration's legislation on fair construction contracts which had been introduced with cross-Party agreement. I am delighted now to be fulfilling that promise.

  I have today laid an order which sets out the arrangements which need to be followed where construction contracts fail to contain adjudication and payment provisions which comply with the 1996 Act. I have also laid an order excluding certain types of contracts, and especially contracts under the Private Finance Initiative, from the terms of the Act.

  These proposals are the result of detailed and comprehensive consultation with all sections of the construction industry. The adjudication provisions will help resolve construction disputes quickly and simply. I am looking to forward to the legislation coming into effect in the Spring.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about progress on including a photograph of the holder on driving licences. [22016]

  Dr. Strang
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will introduce photocard style driving licences from next summer.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government's response to the Government Panel on Sustainable Development's Third Annual Report will be published. [22017]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government's response to the Third Annual Report of the Government Panel on Sustainable Development has been published today. I am pleased that we have been able to respond positively to many of the Panel's recommendations. The Panel is a valuable source of advice for Government in the achievement of sustainable development, an issue which this Government has pledged will be at the heart of all policy-making. I wish to express my gratitude to the Convenor of the Panel, Sir Crispin Tickell, and his colleagues for their continued commitment to helping to identify new sustainable ways of enhancing the quality of life and prosperity for everyone.

  Examples where the Government has been able to respond positively to the Panel's recommendations are:

  on Subsidies: action is being taken to see whether the objectives of subsidies are compatible with sustainable development

  on Aviation Fuel: the Prime Minister pressed for action at the UN Special Session in June

  on Climate change: the Government has set the pace internationally on targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions

  on Environmental Education: the Government has announced a new Environmental Education Panel, under the chairmanship of Sir Geoffrey Holland; commissioned the Council for Environmental Education to draft a code of good practice; and provided additional resources for the Environmental Action Fund

  275

  on Housing and Land Use Planning: the Government is looking at ways of using fiscal incentives to meet environmental objectives.

  I am placing copies of the response in the Library.

  Environment Council
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 16 December. [22084]

  Mr. Meacher
  I and the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council on 16 December 1997.

  The Council reached a common position on a regulation establishing common rules and procedures for the export of certain types of Community waste to certain non-OECD countries which will complete the regulatory regime controlling the export of non-hazardous waste to non-OECD countries.

  The Council agreed conclusions on the Community's proposed strategy to combat acid rain. Ministers supported the Strategy in principle, but noted that the costs of the Commission's proposals were excessive and called for further work to be done to establish a sounder methodology. Conclusions were also agreed on the Community's Biodiversity Strategy, calling upon the Commission to produce the Strategy, which is required under the Biodiversity Strategy, by the end of January 1998.

  In the discussion on the proposed directive to reduce emissions from light commercial vehicles, the Council reached a general understanding on the way forward, but the European Parliament's opinion is needed before Common Position can be reached. The Council also reached a broad measure of common understanding on the proposed Landfill Directive but again, a decision on a Common Position must await the European Parliament's opinion.

  The Commission reported on progress on the Water Framework Directive and on environmental indicators and green national accounting. The Commission also made presentations on proposals for a directive to reduce emissions for heavy goods vehicles, a revised directive on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms, and a communication on Environment and Employment.

  Over lunch, Ministers discussed the EU' s approach to climate change in light of the outcome of the recent Kyoto conference. There was broad agreement that more work needed to be done urgently in a number of areas, including sinks, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading in the run up to the next negotiating session. This will be a priority during the UK Presidency, as will work to finalise the burden sharing among Member States on the EU target and to take forward common and co-ordinated policies and measures. Brief discussions were also held on the Community mechanism for monitoring greenhouse gas emissions and on Community action needed to control CO2 emissions from cars.
  276
  After the conclusion of business, as is customary for the incoming Chair of the Council. I thanked the Luxembourg minister and his team for their hard work during their Presidency. I announced that the environment would be one of the key themes of the UK's Presidency overall and that in the Environment Council, we would take forward work on climate change, including the proposals on a CO2 monitoring mechanism and CO2 from cars; continue the work on landfill, emissions from light vans, sulphur content of liquid fuels, the Solvents Directive, revision of Directives on Biotechnology and the Water Framework Directive; and start discussion of new proposals on the Air Quality Daughter Directive, a directive on emissions from heavy goods vehicles, the European Environment Agency regulation, the Zoos Recommendation and the EU Biodiversity Strategy. We would prepare the EU position on a number of international events, including the Commission on Sustainable Development, the fourth Conference of Parties to the Biodiversity Convention and the Environment for Europe Conference. Finally, I also announced that there would be a joint session of the Environment and Transport Councils on 17 June and an Informal Council on 24–26 April, again with a joint session of environment and transport ministers.

  Lead Shot
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he plans to restrict the use of lead shot over wetlands. [22085]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department is considering the best legislative options to prohibit the use of lead shot over wetlands in the United Kingdom. Legislation will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time permits. This will enable the United Kingdom to meet its commitment under the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement to endeavour to phase out lead shot over wetlands by the year 2000. In the meantime the voluntary phase out of the use of lead shot over wetlands will continue.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned into the possible health effects of telecommunication masts transmitting microwaves. [21250]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department has commissioned two studies on biological effects of microwaves as part of its Radiation Protection Research Programme. The first is investigating the influence of radiation on learning ability and behaviour. The other is a laboratory study looking for biological responses of human cells in an electromagnetic radiation field.

  The Department is also contributing to the World Health Organisation International Electromagnetic Field Project which includes health effects of microwaves.

  In addition, the Small Area Health Statistics Unit, on behalf of this and five other Government Departments, has investigated the incidence of leukaemia near 20 high power Television/FM transmitters in Great Britain. The study found that living close to a transmitter was not associated with an increased risk of leukaemia.
  277

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Smoking
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission when the Commission expects the House to become a non-smoking building. [21693]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  There are no current plans to designate any part of the Parliamentary Estate as a non-smoking building.

DEFENCE

  Land Mines
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many land mines and anti-personnel mines have been destroyed through United Kingdom supported programmes since 1 May. [18959]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government provide financial and/or personnel support to a number of mine clearance programmes. Because some of these programmes are carried out by international organisations, the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Furthermore, the key measure used in such programmes is not the number of mines destroyed but the size of area cleared.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the(a) first and (b) last deliveries were made of the (i) Jaguar, (ii) Tornado F3, (iii) Tornado GR1 and (iv) RAF Harrier; and what is the life expectancy of each aircraft type. [20078]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Aircraft

  First delivery

  Last delivery

  Current planned out of service date

  Jaguar

  1973

  1982

  2008

  Tornado F3

  1986

  1993

  2010

  Tornado GR1

  1980

  1992

  12006

  Harrier

  1969

  21995

  2015

  Note:

  1 Those Tornado GR1 s which are being upgraded to GR4 will have an out of service date of 2018.

  2 The first Harrier delivered was a GR1, the last Harrier delivered was a T-10. The out of service date relates to GR7 aircraft.

  The Out of Service dates of each aircraft type are kept under review and are subject to change.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances NATO's Joint Sub-Regional Command (Madrid) will be responsible for the operational command of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [20475]

  Dr. Reid
  NATO's Joint Sub-Regional Commands, once implemented, will have no permanently established boundaries or areas of responsibility. Regional 278
  Commanders will be able to propose the establishment of areas of responsibility for particular Joint Sub-Regional Commands in specific contingencies or missions. Such proposals will require the approval of all NATO nations. The defence and security of Gibraltar are, and will remain, the direct responsibility of the United Kingdom.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with which countries the DERA has been involved in collaborative research involving animals in the last 10 years. [20511]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 18 December 1999:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) I have been asked to reply to your question about which countries DERA has been involved with in collaborative research involving the use of animals over the past ten years.
  DERA has been, and continues to be, involved in a large number of collaborative research programmes, a small number of which involve the use of animals by one or more of the partners. Information as to whether specific programmes include animal use is not collected centrally, and to look at agreements individually in order to identify those which involve animals would incur unreasonable costs.
  However, in general terms, collaboration involving the exchange of data likely to have been generated from experiments involving animals occurs, or has occurred with the following countries-United States, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, France, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden and Germany.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the procedures which have been carried out on horses and (b) the number of horses involved in these procedures which have died as a result at (i) Porton Down and (ii) other establishments for which he is responsible in each of the last 10 years. [20468]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from J. Chisholm to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 18 December 1997:
  As Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), I have been asked to reply to your questions about procedures carried out on horses at Porton Down and elsewhere.
  The numbers of procedures carried out on horses at the Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) Sector at Porton Down in each of the last 10 years are reported as follows:

  Year

  Number of procedures

  1987

  7

  1988

  1

  1989

  0

  1990

  50

  1991

  46

  1992

  44

  1993

  16

  279

  Year

  Number of procedures

  1994

  0

  1995

  0

  1996

  0

  Between 1987 and 1993, a total of eight horses were used as blood donors for the supply of normal blood used in the preparation of media for microbiology. The horses were bled in rotation and only small volumes, relative to the size of the animals, were taken. The removal of a small volume of blood every few weeks caused no ill effects in the animals and no animals died as a result of these procedures.
  As you can see from the figures above, the relationship between the numbers of procedures, animals used and deaths is not necessarily a simple extrapolation. Further, there have been changes in the reporting requirements of the Home Office. For example, when the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 was first introduced, it was agreed with the Home Office Inspectorate that multiple blood samples taken from a single horse would constitute one procedure. This changed in 1990, when a procedure was recorded each time a blood sample was taken.
  There has been a continuing interest in the use of animals in defence research and the retrieval of information to answer this question has highlighted potential anomalies in the presentation and interpretation of statistics regarding animal experimentation. I refer to my replies to questions from Mr. Norman Baker MP and from yourself (Official Report Cols 174 and 172 dated 2 December 1997).
  Specifically, in each case we presented the figures on animal experimentation as returned annually to the Home Office. However, there are differences in reporting requirements between the two Acts which have governed animal experimentation (the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 and Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986), and a subsequent revision in 1990 to the 1986 Act has required that the figures recorded are the numbers of procedures conducted rather than the numbers of animals involved.
  As a result, there are some inconsistencies in the statistics over the period of time in which these changes took place. In the majority of cases, the number of procedures conducted equates to the number of animals used. During the investigations into this matter we have discovered that the over reporting also relates to sheep and dog usage but unfortunately the available data has not been recorded in a suitable manner to allow a reliable breakdown of information to be produced. Nevertheless, the gross statistics which have been provided are substantially correct and represent the maximum experimentation figures.
  Finally, as far as the Defence Animal Centre is concerned, I can confirm that no procedures have been carried out on horses (and hence there have been no deaths) over the past 10 years.
  I hope this answers your questions and clarifies the position.

  HMS Invincible
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long HMS Invincible will remain in the Mediterranean. [21010]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The issue of UNSCOM access to Iraqi facilities is not yet resolved and we need to maintain vigilance. HMS Invincible and her detachment of RAF Harriers, together with the RFA Fort Victoria, will remain in the Mediterranean until further notice.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the actions taken by the Procurement Executive to implement smart procurement measures. [21124]
  280
  Mr. Spellar
  MOD is undertaking a fundamental and rigorous review of its procurement policies, procedures and practices. I have instituted wide consultation within MOD, well beyond the boundaries of the Procurement Executive, and also with Industry. Much work has already been done and I expect that formal recommendations will emerge early in the New Year. It will then be possible to outline the measures to be implemented.

  Service Accommodation (Evictions)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision is made for households evicted from armed forces' housing estates; and what liaison takes place with local authorities to ensure that families are properly re-housed locally with particular reference to those households whose head is(a) unemployed and (b) on income support. [21325]

  Mr. Spellar
  The responsibility for finding alternative accommodation and contacting Local Authorities rests with the individual concerned. However, MOD are sensitive to the needs of the individuals and, where necessary, provide advice and assistance in liaison with Local Authorities and completion of the necessary paperwork. In addition, the Joint Service Housing Advice Office (JSHAO), a tri-Service organisation, provides housing advice on all aspects of housing needs including renting through the council to personnel from any of the three services and their dependants, and also separated partners who are occupying Service families accommodation.

  Land Rovers
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Series 3 Land Rovers have now been withdrawn from service with the Army; and if they have been disposed of. [21143]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: To date, 3,226 Series 3 Land Rovers have been withdrawn from service. Approximately 60 have so far been sold.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the 110 Series Land Rover has an exhaust emission which meets current EU regulations. [21148]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: The Trucks Utility Medium (High Specification) (TUM(HS)) 110 Series vehicles currently on order from Land Rover fully comply with current EU regulations.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about exhaust emissions of Army Land Rovers. [21147]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: I am not aware of any representations concerning exhaust emissions of Army Land Rovers being received.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to extend the life of Series 3 Land Rovers. [21144]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: There are no plans to extend the in-service life of the Series 3 Land Rover.
  281
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Series 3 and (b) 110 Land Rovers are currently mothballed. [21146]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: There are no Series 3 or 110 Land Rovers currently mothballed.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many 110 Series Land Rovers have been ordered by the Army; and how many have been delivered. [21145]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: A total of 6,029 Series 110 vehicles designated as Trucks Utility Medium (High Specifications), TUM(HS) have been ordered from Land Rover. To date 2,565 have been delivered.

SCOTLAND

  Atholl and Breadalbane Fox Control Society
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial support his Department has given to the Atholl and Breadalbane Fox Control Society in each year since 1990. [19522]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]: The information is in the table:

  Financial year

  Grant paid (£)

  1990–91

  4,375.99

  1991–92

  4,275.05

  1992–93

  5,635.26

  1993–94

  6,159.34

  1994–95

  7,334.17

  1995–96

  8,152.60

  1996–97

  6,843.15

  1997–98

  7,612.93

  Date

  Place

  Reason

  Minister

  Cost (£)

  19–20 May

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  Lord Sewel

  1,482.08

  25–27 June

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  Brian Wilson

  1,632.80

  16 October

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  Lord Sewel

  3,147.20

  20–21 October

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  Lord Sewel

  1,342.88

  29–31 October

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  Lord Sewel

  3,160.32

  In addition Ministers also undertook the following visits to promote or represent Scotland's interests abroad:

  12–14 May

  Cannes

  Launch Scottish Film Day

  Sam Galbraith

  4,156.99

  1–2 June

  Brussels

  Meet EU Commissioners

  Lord Sewel

  1,979.26

  20–21 August

  Santiago

  Attend Celtic Watersports Festival and tourism promotion

  Brian Wilson

  1,686.20

  2–4 September

  Copenhagen

  Study tour of Danish sport participation and school sports

  Sam Galbraith

  2,305.08

  20–28 September

  USA

  Inward investment and trade promotion

  Secretary of State

  13,059.50

  8–9 October

  Brussels

  Meet EU Commissioners

  Secretary of State

  3,981.37

  4–10 October

  Hong-Kong, Taiwan and Japan

  Inward investment and trade promotion

  Brian Wilson

  25,069.23

  5–6 October

  Munich

  Fact finding mission for Scottish Parliament

  Henry McLeish

  4,907.32

  7–9 October

  Oslo and Tampere

  Meet Norwegian and Finnish Ministers to discuss Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry and the EnvironmentLord Sewel

  5,934.54

  20–22 October

  Ireland

  Gaelic related issues

  Brian Wilson

  498.00

  282
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to alter the financial support his Department gives to the Atholl and Breadalbane Fox Control Society. [19521]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]: The Fox Destruction Scheme under which Atholl and Breadalbane Fox Control Society and the other fox destruction clubs receive financial support is currently under review. A final decision on the future of the Scheme has not yet been made.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding financial support from his Department for the Atholl and Breadalbane Fox Control Society. [19523]

  Mr. Macdonald
  None.

  New Deal
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the private sector to lead a partnership for the organisation and delivery of the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds; and if he will make a statement. [22128]

  Mr. Dewar
  I have selected Forth Valley as the area in Scotland for which competitive tenders will be sought from the private sector to lead partnerships for the organisation and delivery of the New Deal.

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each of the overseas trips made by himself and other members of his ministerial team since 2 May, specifying in each case(a) the participating Minister or Ministers, (b) the destination of the trip, (c) the purpose of the trip and (d) the cost of the trip; and if he will make a statement. [15248]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 11 November 1997]: Details of European Council meetings attended by Ministers from 2 May to 31 October 1997 are shown in the table:
  283

  Meningitis
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Government have taken to raise public awareness of meningitis, with particular reference to the university student population in Scotland. [20748]

  Mr. Galbraith
  It is vital that public awareness of meningococcal meningitis is maintained. Although relatively uncommon in Scotland, the infection can have potentially serious consequences. Prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment can be lifesaving. Young children are the group most likely to be affected, but recently there has been an increase in the number of cases in young adults. The Health Education Board for Scotland publication "Birth to Five", which is issued to all new mothers in Scotland, includes information and advice about meningitis. Relevant information, produced by the Meningitis Research Foundation and the National Meningitis Trust, is issued routinely to students. The Scottish Office Department of Health is keeping the situation under review, in consultation with Health Board Consultants in Public Health Medicine.

WALES

  Unoccupied Homes
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the total number of unoccupied homes in Wales (i) on 1 April 1990 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available; and what proportion was owned by(a) local authorities, (b) central Government Departments, (c) the private sector, (d) housing associations and (e) others. [19941]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Complete information on the number of vacant dwellings is collected for local authority stock only. However, the available information on housing association stock and on homes owned by the Welsh Office is given below. Figures for homes owned by the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence in England and Wales were given in the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction to a question from the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on 20 November 1997,Official Report, column 304. These data are not readily available separately for Wales.

  Available information on vacant dwellings

  April 1990

  March 1997

  Local authority dwellings

  3,023

  4,722

  Housing association1

  21,154

  3538

  Welsh Office stock

  n/a

  433

  n/a = not available.

  1 These data are for all housing associations registered with Tai Cymru except Almshouse charities, Abbeyfield Societies and Co-ownership societies: they relate to units which may be either dwellings or bedspaces in special needs hostels or dwellings.

  2 At 31 March 1990.

  3 Excludes, in addition, special needs units.

  4 At 1 April 1997. Excludes NHS properties.

  284

  Primary Health Care
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to increase the role of primary health care in Wales. [20726]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  On 17 July I announced a comprehensive package of measures designed to promote primary and community health care in Wales. Some £2.5 million has been set aside for these proposals, which include:an Equity Fund of £500,000 to address inequalities in Primary Care an additional £500,000 investment in training and education in general practice
  £300,000 to implement pilot schemes under the Primary Care Act
  a Primary Care Development Fund of £250,000 to fund innovative projects
  £200,000 to promote the wider use of pharmacists
  a further £250,000 made available to attract more dentists into Wales
  £150,000 to train nurses and health visitors to prescribe certain drugs
  establishing a fraud unit to address the problem of prescription fraud.

  The NHS (Primary Care) Act 1997 allows those who wish to have additional flexibility, the opportunity to pilot different models for providing primary care services. These pilots offer scope to test new ideas with a view to improving the services presently available.

  I shall shortly be publishing a White Paper on replacing the NHS internal market in Wales and this will include further proposals for developing primary care. The draft health authority allocations [to be] published on 15 December shows that health authorities in Wales will receive a 5 per cent. real terms increase in their cash limited allocations for General Medical Services for next year.

  Beef
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the market for beef produced in Wales. [21244]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Government is considering farmers' concerns, and we hope to make a statement on the way forward shortly.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to meet TUC Wales to discuss the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [21243]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  No such meeting has been requested by the TUC Wales.

  Road Building Schemes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish his plans for further road building schemes; and if he will make a statement. [21241]
  285
  Mr. Hain
  The review of the forward trunk road programme announced in July is still at an early stage. It is not possible to say when we will be able to give any indications as to the size and composition of the future trunk road programme.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the number of starts which will be allocated to each TEC in Wales for modern apprenticeships in 1998–99. [21025]

  Mr. Hain
  Programme provision allows for a total of 4,500 modern apprenticeship starts in Wales in 1998–99. Details of the allocation of these starts to individual TECs will not be available until contract negotiations between both the Welsh Office and the TECs and between the TECs and their training providers have been concluded.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate his Department has made of the number of starts allocated in 1996–97 to each TEC in Wales for modern apprenticeships; and what proportion of these starts had been used at the last available date. [21026]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Modern apprenticeship starts 1996–97

  TEC

  (i) Total modern apprenticeship starts planned at 1 April 1996

  (ii) Total modern apprenticeship starts achieved at 30 March 1997

  (ii) as a percentage of (i)

  Gwent

  894

  996

  111

  Mid Glamorgan

  653

  644

  99

  North East Wales

  500

  520

  104

  North West Wales

  400

  441

  96

  Powys

  129

  115

  89

  South Glamorgan

  560

  602

  108

  West Wales

  1,100

  1,350

  123

  Wales total

  4,296

  4,668

  109

  Source:

  TEC Management Information.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the change in each TEC budget for 1998–99. [20985]

  Mr. Hain
  The budgets of individual TECs for 1998–99 will not be known until finalisation of their business plans following negotiation next year. However, total funding for Government programmes delivered through TECs (including the TEC Management Fee, Training for Work allowances and other central costs) will decrease from £118.1 million to £110.1 million (6.8 per cent.) between 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the programmes for TECs in Wales which will receive a reduced allocation in 1998–99. [20984]
  286
  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is as follows:

  Programmes delivered through TECs

  £ million

  1997–98 plans

  1998–99 plans

  Youth Training and Youth Credits

  63.4

  61.4

  Education-Business Links

  3.0

  3.0

  Training for Work

  22.7

  15.5

  Business and Enterprise Support

  10.4

  7.5

  Contribution to TEC Management Costs

  7.5

  7.1

  The figures include Training for Work allowances and other central costs. The reduction in the Education-Business Links budget (£50,000) does not show in the roundings to the nearest £0.1 million.

  River Dee Bridge
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the new River Dee bridge to be open to traffic; and if he will make a statement. [21242]

  Mr. Hain
  Flintshire County Council are responsible for this scheme. They now estimate the opening to take place in February-March.

  Welfare to Work
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what expenditure under the welfare to work New Deal will be allocated to Wales in 1998–99. [20983]

  Mr. Hain
  The financial estimates relating to the New Deal for 1998–99 will not be finalised until the end of January so I am not able at this time to say exactly what the planned expenditure for Wales will be. I will write to my hon. Friend once the figure is known, and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Student Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students are applying to university colleges in Wales for 1998 admission, broken down by constituencies in Wales. [21240]

  Mr. Hain
  Information on university applications is held centrally by the University and Colleges Admissions Services (UCAS). Entry data for 1998 is unavailable at present but would not be available on a constituency basis. UCAS intend issuing a statement on 19 December 1997.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the number of staffed acute beds in use for each of the last 10 years. [21404]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information is given in the following table:

  Average daily available acute beds in NHS hospitals in Wales1

  Number

  1987–88

  9,463

  1988–89

  9,376

  1989–90

  9,139

  1990–91

  9,056

  1991–92

  8,835

  1992–93

  8,659

  1993–94

  8,441

  287

  Average daily available acute beds in NHS hospitals in Wales1

  Number

  1994–95

  8,479

  1995–96

  8,439

  1996–97

  8,619

  1 Excluding beds in psychiatric, maternity and geriatric specialties.

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many vacant positions there were in each of the last five years for(a) hospital doctors, (b) general practitioners and (c) nurses. [21356]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on vacant positions is only collected for hospital doctors. The number of vacant posts in each of the last five years was as follows:

  Posts vacant as at 30 September

  Number

  1992

  58

  1993

  61

  1994

  78

  1995

  75

  1996

  47

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the projected shortfall for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) hospital doctors, (ii) general practitioners and (iii) nurses. [21357]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The information requested is not collected centrally but estimates of any projected shortfall may be obtainable from trusts, health authorities, and in the case of GPs, from the Medical Practices Committee.

  Medical and Dental Students
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the source of the funding for the special support covering tuition fees beyond year four for Welsh medical and dental students studying at a Scottish medical school. [20097]

  Mr. Galbraith
  I am replying on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. It is the Government's intention that all eligible UK medical and dental students should benefit from the special provisions announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 23 September. The arrangements will be the subject of further discussions between the departments concerned.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Irian Jaya
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will raise the situation of the population of Irian Jaya with the Indonesian authorities with particular reference to problems relating to food distribution on the Island. [21422]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Indonesian authorities are aware of the international concern regarding the situation in Irian Jaya. Indonesian NGOs such as Indonesian Red Cross and Caritas Indonesia are actively participating in the relief 288
  process. The international donor community is also committed to alleviating the desperate plight of those affected, including improvements to the food distribution process.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which non-governmental aid organisations have notified her Department that they are working in Irian Jaya. [21423]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have been notified by World Vision, International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations Department for Humanitarian Affairs (UNDHA) of their activities in Irian Jaya. From the regular reports that we receive from UNDHA we are aware that Care International, Caritas Indonesia, Indonesian Red Cross, UNICEF and UNDP are also active in the area.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she is taking to assist the population of Irian Jaya. [21421]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have been monitoring the situation closely through out Embassy in Jakarta and the United Nations Department for Humanitarian Affairs (UNDHA) in Geneva. We have provided UNHDA with US$90,000 towards the immediate relief needs of those affected. We have also contributed £75,000 to International Red Cross Committee's appeal for support to (i) assess the nutritional status of the Irianese and assisting with relief aid, (ii) evaluate hygiene conditions and improving access to safe drinking water through water and sanitation programmes and (iii) provide medical assistance. We are also expecting a proposal from World Vision, a well respected non-government organisation, which we are prepared to consider favourably.

  North Korea
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what humanitarian aid the United Kingdom gives to North Korea. [21684]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The UK share of the EC programme of humanitarian aid for North Korea over the past year exceeds £6 million.

  In addition, since 1995 we have committed over £1 million in emergency humanitarian aid to North Korea. This includes assistance this year through the International Federation of the Red Cross of £495,000 for food distribution and £80,000 to assist people affected by typhoon floods in west coast provinces.

  Land Mines (Egypt)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate her Department has made of the number of land mines which remain in Egypt which were laid(a) by British forces, (b) by other allied forces and (c) in total. [20631]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  289

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Accounting Officers
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions written directions have been sought by permanent secretaries and other accounting officers in the past five years; in what circumstances; and on what dates. [19212]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: In the last five years no written directions have been sought by permanent secretaries or other accounting officers from the six Northern Ireland departments or the NIO.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which foreign military, security and police personnel have received training by the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and at which locations such training was provided in each of the last five years. [20012]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1992 the RUC have provided training on three occasions to overseas police personnel. Two superintendents from Botswana (1992), seven senior ranking Indian police officers (1993) and one American officer (1997) received training from the RUC. This training took place within Northern Ireland.

  Cattle Slaughter
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many bulls were slaughtered in Northern Ireland(a) during the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available and (b) in the previous 12 month period; and if she will make a statement on the reasons for the differences between those figures. [20346]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The most recent 12 month period for which Northern Ireland bull slaughter figures are available is for the 12 months ended 31 October 1997. During that period 14,375 bulls were slaughtered compared to 29,201 in the previous 12 month period.

  There has been a decline in the number of bulls slaughtered in Northern Ireland due to the loss of export markets, following the introduction in March 1996 of the European Union's ban on the export of United Kingdom beef.

  Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will seek to amend the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill to redefine the role and responsibilities of the Police Association for Northern Ireland to ensure that it complies with current best practice in the conduct of elections. [20909]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have no immediate plans to revise the terms of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill to redefine the role and responsibilities of the Police Association for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when and for what reasons a senior official of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland was suspended in 1996; how many other officials were 290
  suspended or put under investigation; when the investigation was concluded; and what its outcome was. [20794]

  Mr. Ingram
  A senior official of the Police Authority was suspended on 7 October 1996 in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Code, to enable an investigation to take place. Two other officials were suspended and investigations were conducted into the actions of these three and one other official.

  The investigations into suspected irregularities in procedures have been completed. One official has been dismissed and criminal proceedings against him remain under consideration by the police. A senior official has had his appeal against disciplinary action upheld and no disciplinary action was directed against two other officials.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will(a) publish the rules which will apply to the forthcoming elections for office in the Police Association for Northern Ireland, (b) encourage the Chief Constable to appoint independent scrutineers and (c) appoint a committee to review the conduct of such elections. [20905]

  Mr. Ingram
  Members of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland will be taking part in elections in the New Year held in accordance with rules made under the terms of Regulation 23 of the Police Association for Northern Ireland Regulations 1991. I shall arrange for a copy of those Rules to be placed in the Library. I have no plans to amend those Rules in relation to the appointment of scrutineers or to appoint a committee to review the conduct of such elections.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of recent public statements by the Chairman of the Police Association for Northern Ireland; what representations she has made to the Chief Constable about them; and if the statements constitute breaches of the statutory role of the Association or of RUC discipline. [20904]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have not given express consideration to any recent public statements made by the Chairman of the Police Association for Northern Ireland neither have I made representations to the Chief Constable about them constituting breaches of the statutory role of the Association or of RUC discipline.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number and purpose of official journeys outside Northern Ireland undertaken by the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1997 to date. [20751]

  Mr. Ingram
  The official journeys outside Northern Ireland undertaken by the Secretary and Chief Executive of the Police authority in each of the past three years are as follows:

  Journeys

  1995

  8

  1996

  14

  1997 (to date)

  9

  291
  All these journeys were undertaken for the purpose of, either, the official business of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland or the National Training Awards Scheme.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to review the definitions of the words welfare and efficiency in the context of the legislation governing the role and activities of the Police Association for Northern Ireland. [20903]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have no immediate plans to review the definition of the words welfare and efficiency where they are used in the legislation relating to the representation of members of the RUC by the Police Association for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what monies or benefits in kind are provided from public funds to the Police Association for Northern Ireland. [20789]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police Association for Northern Ireland comprises three sections. Grants made to each section by the Police Authority are set out below:

  Police Federation for Northern Ireland

  95 per cent. of salary costs of full time officials;

  the cost of travel of full time officials; and

  80 per cent. of the Police Federation's expenditure on the running costs of the Federation's Headquarters office accommodation.

  The total grants in the current year will be in the order of £200,000.

  Superintendents' Association for Northern Ireland

  In the current year a grant of £6,500 has been made in respect of travel.

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  This year's payment to the association's National Secretariat has not yet been negotiated. Last year's was £23,000.

  (a) Regular monthly authority meetings

  (b) Special authority meetings

  (c) Committee meetings1

  (d) Visits2

  Mr. P. J. Armstrong

  5

  4

  4

  —

  Lt. Col. R. H. Bicker

  4

  4

  8

  —

  Mr. H. B. Casey

  5

  3

  14

  —

  Mr. R. Coulter

  4

  4

  12

  4

  Mr. R. L. Cree

  4

  2

  7

  4

  Mr. R. Empey

  2

  2

  6

  1

  Mrs. K Hargan

  4

  1

  6

  —

  Mr. A. R. A. Huston

  4

  4

  9

  4

  Mr. J. McDonald

  5

  4

  14

  —

  Mr. N. O'Loan

  5

  3

  15

  —

  Mrs. R. Peters-Gallagher

  4

  3

  11

  —

  Mrs. E. Rea

  3

  4

  9

  —

  Mrs. F. Reid

  5

  4

  13

  5

  Mrs. G. A. Rice

  4

  3

  12

  3

  Mr. F. Rocks

  5

  3

  13

  —

  Nr. R. Spence

  2

  2

  9

  1

  Prof. H. Wallace

  3

  4

  4

  1

  Mr. T. Wilson

  4

  2

  11

  4

  Member3

  5

  4

  9

  3

  1 Committee meetings are meetings of the Authority's Policy Co-ordinating Committee, General Purposes Committee, Support Services Committee, Community Relations Committee, Finance and Personnel Committee and Audit Committee.

  2 These visits were undertaken by the Authority's Support Services Committee.

  3 Authority Member whose name is not in the public domain.

  292
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations the Police Authority for Northern Ireland has made to her about ensuring a neutral working environment in all RUC and Police Authority establishments in line with established fair employment legislation. [20906]

  Mr. Ingram
  The issue of a neutral working environment has been the subject of separate and composite representations from the Police Authority on several occasions in recent years. These have included presentation in March 1996 of a Consultation report "Everyone's Police—A Partnership for Change", correspondence and discussions with the last Secretary of State and Minister of State during 1996 and coverage within the Annual Report of the Police Authority which was presented to the Secretary of State in June 1997.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions she has had with the Chairman of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland concerning the importance of retaining public confidence in the RUC in its dealings with the entire community in Northern Ireland. [20792]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the Chairman and Secretary of the Police Federation for Northern Ireland on Wednesday 10 December, to discuss a number of matters connected with policing arrangements in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend also attended the Federation Conference in June.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the attendance record of each member of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland from July 1997 to date at(a) regular monthly authority meetings, (b) special authority meetings, (c) meetings of each sub-committee and (d) visits to authority and RUC establishments. [20762]

  Mr. Ingram
  The attendance record for the period July-November 1997 is as follows:
  293
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many times the Police Authority for Northern Ireland's working group on public accountability and communication with the public has met since its appointment in April 1996, when its work will be complete; and if its findings will be published. [20756]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Authority's Working Group on Openness and Accountability me on six occasions between 24 April 1996 and its final meeting on 28 November 1996. The Working Group's recommendations were considered by the Authority during its meeting in December 1996 and, on 8 April 1997, two codes of practice were published and a press conference was held.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what matters have been investigated in the operations of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland following the suspension of a senior official in 1996, and what steps have been taken(a) in respect of that official and (b) in other respects arising from the investigation. [20765]

  Mr. Ingram
  Procedures relating to the letting of contracts, the proper maintenance of appropriate documentation and adherence to proper procedures were investigated. The senior official concerned was suspended on full pay pending investigation and the matter dealt with through the Disciplinary Code. A subsequent appeal, by the senior official, against disciplinary action was upheld. Purchasing and approval procedures have been thoroughly revised and are now being applied.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the interests declared and registered by members of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. [20755]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information requested is set out below:

  Police authority for Northern Ireland Register of Interests

  Name

  Interest registered

  Mr. P. J. Armstrong (Chairman)

  Catholic Family Care Society Childcare (NI)

  Management Committee Member Executive Committee Member

  British Association of Social Workers

  Member

  Northern Association of Justices of the Peace

  Member

  Professor H. Wallace (Vice-Chairman)

  None

  Lt. Col. R. H. Bicker

  Litton Group Ltd.

  Director

  Down District Council

  Local Councillor (Ulster Unionist Party)

  Mr. H. B. Casey

  None

  Mr. R. J. Coulter

  Ballymena Borough Council

  Alderman (Ulster Unionist Party)

  Northern Ireland Forum

  Chief Whip (Ulster Unionist Party)

  Congress of Local and Regional Authorities in Europe

  Member

  CLRAE Working Group on Crime and Insecurity in the Urban Situation

  Member

  294

  Police authority for Northern Ireland Register of Interests

  Name

  Interest registered

  Citizens' Advice Bureau, Ballymena

  Trustee

  Galgorm and Gracehill Preservation Trust

  Member

  Orange and Royal Black Institutions

  Nominal Member

  Mr. R. L. Cree

  North Down Borough Council

  Local Councillor (Ulster Unionist Party)

  Member of the Orange, Black and Masonic Institutions

  Mr. R. Empey

  Belfast City Council

  Local Councillor (Ulster Unionist Party)

  Orange Order

  Member

  Royal Black Institution

  Member

  Walkway Community Association

  Member

  Mr. K. F. Hargan

  Lumen Christi College, Derry

  Member of Board of Governors

  Mr. A. R. A. Huston

  Federation of Small Businesses (NI) Region

  Vice-Chairman

  Lord Chancellor's Legal and Advisory Committee

  Member

  HM Young Offenders' Centre, Hydebank Wood

  Member of Visiting Committee

  Mr. J. O. McDonald

  Justice of the Peace Independent Assessor of Military Complaints

  RUC Museum

  Trustee

  RUC Historical Society

  Member

  An Garda Siochana Historical Society

  Member

  Knights of St. Columbanus

  Member

  Association of Papal Knights in Ireland

  Secretary

  Mrs. N. P. O'Loan

  NI Consumer Committee for Electricity

  Chairperson

  ACCORD

  Chairperson

  Ballymena Swimming Club

  Chairperson

  Victim Support

  Person

  Women Together for Peace

  Member

  Mrs. R. I. Peters-Gallagher

  Witt Thornton, Chartered Accountants Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland

  Partner

  Lerwill House Ltd.

  Member of Management Committee

  Mrs. E. Rea

  Elsbeth Rea Associates

  Principal

  North Down and Ards Home Start

  Non Executive Director and Company Secretary

  Mrs. F. Reid

  None

  Mrs. G. A. Rice

  Castlereagh Borough Council

  Council Member (Alliance Party)

  Mr. F. P. Rocks

  Ancient Order of Hibernians Cookstown and Magherafelt Lions Club Drugs Awareness Officer of the Lions Club

  Member

  Trade Union—Unison

  Member

  295

  Police authority for Northern Ireland Register of Interests

  Name

  Interest registered

  Mr. R. A. J. Spence

  Honorary Lecturer, Department of Surgery. Queen's University, Belfast Institute of Directors

  Member

  Board of Trustees and Governor, Wallace High School

  Crimestoppers (Northern Ireland)

  Board Member

  Cancer Services, Belfast City Hospital

  Chairman

  Mr. T. J. Wilson

  Cookstown District

  District Councillor

  Council

  (Ulster Unionist Party)

  Orange Order

  Member

  Royal Black Institution

  Member

  Apprentice Boys of Derry

  Member

  Royal Arch Purple Institution

  Member

  Masonic Lodge

  Member

  GMB Trade Union

  Member

  One Member of the Authority, whose name is not in the public domain, has been given an exemption under Paragraph 14 of the Authority's Code of Conduct from listing his/her interests.

  Union Flag (Police Stations)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will request the Police Authority and Chief Constable to review the list of days and occasions when the Union flag is flown over police stations. [20763]

  Mr. Ingram
  The flying of the Union Flag over police stations in Northern Ireland is a matter to be dealt with by the Chief Constable.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations the Police Authority for Northern Ireland has made to her about the list of days and occasions when the Union Flag is flown over police stations. [20908]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police Authority for Northern Ireland presented its annual report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in June 1997; this included details of the Authority's views on the flying of the Union Flag over police stations. The matter was also discussed with the Authority at a meeting on 15 October 1997.

  Students (Second Degrees)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the support her Department will make available to students who chose medicine or dentistry as a second degree. [20777]

  Mr. Worthington
  A student who has already been on a course for which he has received support from public funds is precluded under the provisions of the Students' Regulations (Northern Ireland) from receiving an award to undertake a second first degree course in medicine, dentistry or any other subject. Such a student is eligible, however, to apply for a student loan towards his living costs. These rules will continue to apply to new students in 1998–99.
  296

  Schools
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals DENI has for further research on aspects of the Coopers and Lybrand report. [21231]

  Mr. Worthington
  The question of any further research on the issues raised in the Coopers and Lybrand Report on LMS formula funding will be considered further now that the interim proposals for 1998–99 have been finalised.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is DENI' s timetable for the implementation of full commonality in the LMS formula. [21228]

  Mr. Worthington
  The timetable for the implementation of full commonality in LMS funding formulae will be determined following further consultation and discussion with interested parties.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full-time, non-teaching employees of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools(a) there are currently and (b) there were in 1993–94. [21267]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information is as follows:

  Number

  Currently employed

  48

  Employed in 1993–94

  34

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the(a) Coopers and Lybrand report proposal that the social deprivation factor in the LMS formula should quantify objectively the extra costs likely to be incurred by schools in educating pupils from socially deprived backgrounds and (b) the cost per pupil of that proposal. [21230]

  Mr. Worthington
  No detailed assessment has yet been made of the Coopers and Lybrand proposals relating to social deprivation. Part of that assessment will be the availability of working criteria for the inter-related factor of educational need.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals she has to introduce arrangements by which the views of controlled schools can be represented to her and to the DENI analogous to the arrangements available to the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. [21308]

  Mr. Worthington
  Adequate arrangements are already in place to ensure that the views of schools of all types can be represented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Department of Education in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many principals and vice-principals of maintained schools who took early retirement from teaching, are currently employed, full-time or part-time by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. [21269]

  Mr. Worthington
  Two former principals who took early retirement are currently employed on a full-time basis by the Council.
  297
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the perceived religious affiliations of non-teaching employees of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools were last monitored by the FEC. [21266]

  Mr. Ingram
  In common with all other specified Public Authorities the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) is required to monitor the religious composition of its workforce on an annual basis. The CCMS last monitored the perceived community background of its non-teaching employees on 1 January 1997. This information will be publishing in March 1998.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the perceived religious affiliations of present, non-teaching employees, of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. [21268]

  Mr. Ingram
  The latest published monitoring information is contained in the FEC's Seventh Annual Monitoring Report (March 1997). That document shows that at 1 January 1996, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools had 40 employees of whom less than 10 were determined as being from the Protestant community.

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account her Department took of the Museums Association Code of Practice for Museum Governing Bodies in the preparation of the draft Museums and Galleries (NI) Order 1997. [21134]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: The Department took into account the comments received from the Museums Association on the proposal for a draft Order. Its comments would obviously reflect its code of practice.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in relation to the draft Museums and Galleries (NI) Order 1997, what representations were received from the Museums and Galleries Commission on the subject of powers to override trusts or conditions which prohibit or restrict the disposal of objects donated to museums and galleries. [21132]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: The Museums and Galleries Commission (MGC) expressed concern that the powers of disposal contained within the first draft Order which was published in March 1997 were too wide-ranging and suggested wording similar to that used in Scottish legislation.

  These views were taken into account in framing the revised draft which was laid on 25 November 1997 and which restricted the circumstances in which disposal could be considered.

  On the day the draft Order was considered by Parliament, the Government received a letter from MGC expressing the view that although the revised draft represented overall a considerable improvement, they considered that the revised wording allowed scope for disposal beyond what they considered appropriate.

  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what account her Department took of the 298
  guidance in the Department of National Heritage Review of Museum Policy in the preparation of the draft Museums and Galleries (NI) Order 1997. [21135]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: As the policy document "Treasures in Trust" was essentially an English document relating to English museums, it was not taken into account in detail by the previous Government when it proposed the draft Order. However, account was taken of many of the general principles expressed, where appropriate.

  Public Order Offences
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been charged in relation to public order offences arising from incidents at(a) Portadown Town Centre, (b) Drumcree Church, (c) Brownstown Road, Portadown and (d) Garvaghy Road, Portadown, in each of the last five years. [20071]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: The information is not available in the format requested and would incur disproportionate costs to provide.

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vacant positions there were in each of the last five years for(a) hospital doctors, (b) general practitioners and (c) nurses. [21360]

  Mr. Worthington
  The information is not held centrally in respect of hospital doctors and nurses. The following table shows the number of general medical practitioner vacancies in each of the last five years, all of which were filled.

  Vacancies

  1993

  59

  1994

  52

  1995

  59

  1996

  40

  1997

  49

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the projected shortfall for(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) hospital doctors, (ii) general practitioners and (iii) nurses. [21361]

  Mr. Worthington
  Sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff are available or in training to meet the projected needs of HSS Trusts and General Practice. There is therefore no expected shortfall.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the number of staffed acute beds in use for each of the last 10 years. [21405]

  Mr. Worthington
  The following table details the average number of beds which were available in wards
  299
  open overnight in the Acute Services Programme of Care in Northern Ireland.

  Average number

  1987

  6,409

  1988–89

  6,107

  1989–90

  5,849

  1990–91

  5,634

  1991–92

  5,438

  1992–93

  5,281

  1993–94

  5,040

  1994–95

  4,813

  1995–96

  4,692

  1996–97

  4,454

  UK beef imports from September 1996 to August 1997

  Carcass Meat

  Offal

  Prepared or preserved

  All beef

  Country of despatch1

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  Tonnes

  £000

  EC

  Irish Republic

  51,979

  110,269

  4,460

  2,344

  14,225

  28,900

  70,664

  141,513

  Netherlands

  15,567

  34,050

  1,822

  1,491

  197

  690

  17,585

  36,231

  Germany

  7,457

  12,498

  799

  331

  75

  66

  8,331

  12,895

  France

  4,471

  7,692

  1,472

  708

  —

  —

  5,942

  8,400

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  1,495

  2,666

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,495

  2,666

  Spain

  1,003

  2,331

  129

  38

  —

  —

  1,133

  2,369

  Denmark

  502

  1,227

  —

  —

  —

  —

  502

  1,227

  Italy

  248

  381

  68

  21

  —

  —

  316

  401

  Other

  585

  1,459

  668

  403

  757

  3,229

  2,010

  5,091

  Non-EC

  Country of origin

  Brazil

  3,875

  12,851

  —

  —

  34,292

  54,324

  38,167

  67,175

  Argentina

  9,007

  17,518

  —

  —

  15,176

  23,086

  24,182

  40,604

  Uruguay

  11,584

  22,476

  —

  —

  4,542

  6,122

  16,126

  28,598

  Australia

  7,860

  25,279

  421

  429

  —

  —

  8,281

  25,708

  Zimbabwe

  5,060

  17,138

  —

  —

  2,316

  4,286

  7,376

  21,424

  Botswana

  5,669

  16,329

  —

  —

  320

  672

  5,989

  17,001

  Namibia

  4,792

  15,722

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,792

  15,722

  New Zealand

  4,588

  7,893

  254

  299

  —

  —

  4,842

  8,192

  Mauritius

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,262

  5,584

  3,262

  5,584

  U.S.A.

  1,382

  3,701

  57

  30

  —

  —

  1,439

  3,731

  Other

  528

  1,815

  768

  749

  429

  761

  1,586

  2,986

  Total imports from EC countries

  83,307

  172,572

  9,417

  5,336

  15,253

  32,886

  107,978

  210,793

  Total imports from non-EC countries

  54,344

  140,721

  1,500

  1,507

  60,335

  94,836

  116,180

  237,064

  Total UK imports

  137,866

  313,515

  10,966

  6,904

  75,628

  127,780

  224,459

  448,199

  1 Some trade may originate from outside the European Community. All data is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he will take to ensure that beef which is being imported from Europe is(a) free of BSE and (b) from a herd with no history of BSE. [21583]

  Mr. Rooker
  Animals showing clinical signs of BSE would not be slaughtered for human consumption in the European Union. Animals which might be incubating the disease at a stage too early to show clinical signs could be slaughtered for human consumption which is why the Government have extended their controls to ensure that the specified risk material is removed from imported beef from 1 January 1998.

  The United Kingdom Government do not have a policy of banning beef from the domestic market from herds which have a case of BSE in the United Kingdom and
  300

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give a breakdown of the country of origin of beef imports in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [20256]

  Mr. Rooker
  UK beef imports for the period September 1996 to August 1997 as recorded in the Overseas Trade Statistics are shown in the table. For trade within the European Community, it is not possible to give a breakdown by country of origin. Instead data are shown by the country from which the goods were despatched.

  there is therefore no basis on which we could apply standards to imports which we did not regard as necessary for our domestic production.

  Vitamin and Mineral Supplements
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to review the safety of vitamin and mineral supplements; and if he will make a statement. [21660]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are concerned about the potential adverse effects of high-dose vitamin and mineral supplements. In view of these concerns, the Minister for Public Health and I have agreed that an ad hoc Expert Group should be established to consider the general principles on which maximum levels of vitamins and minerals in supplements sold under food law could be set.
  301
  The Expert Group will review the available science, and recommend maximum levels for a range of nutrients if appropriate. The Expert Group may also wish to provide advice on the addition of vitamins and minerals to foods. It will report to the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) which will consider the Group's findings and make recommendations to Ministers. The Committee on Safety in Medicines (CSM) will also wish to consider the Report as it may have implications for the way that medicinal products containing vitamins and minerals are licensed. The conclusions of the review will also be used to inform any discussions in Brussels on the possible harmonisation of controls on food supplements and on fortified foods.

  The Expert Group will comprise of a number of experts from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA); the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT); CSM and FAC.

  In order to ensure transparency in the process, an observer from each of the main interest groups—the health food industry, the food industry, complementary medicine interests and consumer organisations—will be invited to meetings of the Expert Group. Interested parties will also be given the opportunity to make written submissions to the Expert Group. It is expected that the expert Group will take 18 months to two years to complete its task.

  The establishment of this Expert Group will not affect the decision to introduce legislation to control the maximum level of vitamin B6 allowed in dietary supplements.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 15 to 16 December; and if he will make a statement. [21662]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the European Union Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels on 15 and 16 December. I was accompanied by my noble friend, the Lord Donoughue, Parliamentary Secretary responsible for farming and the food industry.

  I informed my Ministerial colleagues of developments in relation to BSE, in particular my decision to ban from 1 January 1998 the import into the United Kingdom of meat from which the specified risk material had not been removed. This decision had been taken in the light of the postponement for three months of an EU-wide ban on such material. I also informed the Council of the prohibition which I had announced on 3 December in relation to the marketing of bone-in beef in the light of the scientific evidence which I had received from SEAC.

  The Council considered and reached agreement on two animal welfare measures: one attaching welfare conditions to the payment of export refunds, which was adopted unanimously, the other laying down standards for vehicles used for the transport of animals. The latter was agreed in principle by qualified majority, with my Swedish and Danish colleagues and I unable to support the measure on the grounds that the standards of animal
  302
  protection would be insufficiently high, and difficult to police. Detailed texts implementing this agreement will be considered early in the United Kingdom Presidency.

  The Council discussed at some length a Commission report on the impact of third country trade agreements on the EU's Mediterranean producers. I insisted that, in drawing conclusions on this matter, the Council should have available to it an assessment of the trade benefits of such agreements to the EU as well as the impact on EU producers. The Council also considered a report from the Commission on progress in the negotiations on a veterinary equivalence agreement with the US. It noted that, although the conditions were not yet right for concluding that agreement, the Commission should continue its negotiations with a view to reaching a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible in the new year.

  Amongst other matters discussed and agreed at the Council were measures on the granting of national aid to sugar beet producers in Portugal (Italy voting against); and extension of the temporary derogations for imports of wine from the US (Portugal voting against); rules governing veterinary checks on products entering the EU from third countries (by unanimity); and a proposal consolidating the drinking milk regulation (Greece and Denmark voting against).

  The Irish Minister raised in the Council his Government's concerns over the recent interruptions to trade between the UK and the Republic of Ireland as a result of UK farmers' protests at ports; but he emphasised the close co-operation which exists between the two Governments in seeking to resolve this matter. I stressed the absolute commitment of the Government to maintaining the rule of law, and our intention to do everything necessary to allow the unimpeded movement of goods within the EU single market.

  CJD
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the percentage risk of contracting CJD from consuming 1 kg of beef on-the-bone sourced from cattle born after 1 August 1996; and if he will make a statement. [21597]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the advice given to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) on 16 December 1997,Official Report, column 134.

  The risk assessments undertaken by SEAC relate to consumption in 1998 which would primarily be from beef born before 1 August 1996. The risk in later years would decline with the expectation that the incidence of disease in British cattle would continue to decline.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department's estimates of the total costs of resolving the millennium compliance problem include costs relating to the embedded chip problem; and if he will make a statement. [21565]
  303
  Mr. Morley
  I can confirm that the Department's latest estimate of the total cost of resolving the millennium compliance problem amounts to £11.1 million, of which £4.1 million relates to the embedded chip problem.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what millennium compliance problems have occurred to date in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) other public bodies; and if he will make a statement. [21560]

  Mr. Morley
  Problems encountered when preparing for the millennium include those of a general nature, such as clearly defining the scope of the Department's (including Agency) millennium programme/project(s), as well as resourcing and prioritisation issues. Lower-level problems have been encountered in obtaining required assurances from suppliers of systems/products, identifying risks and required contingency actions (including identifying replacement suppliers/products where necessary). With regard to IT application systems, though the millennium is still two years away, some problems have already appeared—for example problems have been identified (and addressed) on a computer system which is concerned with processing five-year forward-looking agreements, where the termination date falls in the new millennium. Non-Departmental Public Bodies sponsored by the Department do not fall directly within the scope of the Department's millennium programme, but all relevant bodies have been asked to progress essential preparations.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Locate in Scotland
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent communications her Department has had with Locate in Scotland on inward investment issues. [19885]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My officials and those at Locate in Scotland are in regular contact on inward investment issues and they continue to work in partnership under the Committee on Overseas Promotion arrangements.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to ensure that her Department's responsibilities are co-ordinated with the proposed regional development agencies. [19886]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As set out in the White Paper "Building Partnerships for Prosperity"—which has received a warm welcome since it was published at the beginning of the month—regional development agencies will work very closely with my Department on a wide range of activities. Last week, the Government presented to the House a Bill for establishing these agencies. My Department is now working on detailed arrangements for ensuring that these agencies are up and running on 1 April 1999, supporting and enhancing DTI work in ways which meet regional needs.
  304

  Late Payment
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on establishing a statutory right to interest on the late payment of debt. [19887]

  Mrs. Roche
  I am delighted to say that the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill was introduced in the other place on 10 December and published the next day. We expect the second Reading to take place on Monday 12 January.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library copies of all the responses to the Green Paper on "Improving the Payment Culture". [21129]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: A schedule of all responses received, except those where the author specifically requested that their response not be published, was placed in the Library of the House upon publication of the Bill, on Thursday 11 December 1997. The full responses were, in accordance with current guidelines from the Library of the House, placed in the DTI library.

  The House Library will be able to obtain copies of these responses from the DTI's library on request.

  RJB Mining plc
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she last met the chairman of RJB Mining plc. [19888]

  Mr. Battle
  As the Minister responsible for energy matters, I have met with the Chairman and Executives of RJB Mining plc on a number of occasions and will continue to do so as I see necessary. I last formally met Mr. Budge on Thursday 11 December. My officials maintain close contact with the company also.

  High Technology Companies
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to assist high technology companies to expand their businesses. [19890]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government are determined to create an environment in which high technology companies can develop and grow. This includes improving the climate for investment, helping firms to access and adapt new technologies, and encouraging partnerships between the science and engineering base and industry. The DTI has already announced a number of new activities in these areas, including, for example:

  support for the UK Business Incubator Centre;

  setting up a Steering Group on Tech-Stars; and

  establishing the enterprise Zone Internet site.

  Barclays Bank
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the current dispute between Barclays bank and its staff; and if she will make a statement. [19891]

  Mr. Moran
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the current dispute between Barclays bank and its staff. [19898]
  305
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department has received a number of representations about this dispute. These have included representations from the Banking Insurance and Finance Union, UN/FI, a member of Barclays bank staff and Members of this House. ACAS stands ready to assist but can only become involved if both sides agrees.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will invite the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to use its conciliation services in the Barclays bank dispute. [19897]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  ACAS is an independent body and the Government cannot and should not direct it to act in any particular way. ACAS of course stands ready to assist but can become involved in talks only where both sides agree.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will request ACAS to invite Barclays Bank and the unions representing Barclays staff to use its conciliation services to help resolve the current dispute; and if she will make a statement. [19799]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 9 December 1997,Official Report, column 529.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the work of the Low Pay Commission. [19892]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Low Pay Commission is well advanced on its programme of consultation to obtain views of employers, employees and other interested organisations and individuals on the National Minimum Wage. The Commission is also undertaking a series of visits throughout the UK to obtain local views. I understand they will visit Wales on 9 January 1998.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she is taking to ensure the spread of inward investment benefits throughout England. [19893]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Location decisions for inward investment are a matter for the commercial judgment of each inward investor, but all the agencies in England, as elsewhere in the UK, are active in promoting the particular attractions of their regions. New supply chain opportunities generated by inward investment projects often cut across regional boundaries thus widening the benefits beyond any single region.

  Research Organisations
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures her Department is taking to improve communication between business and research base organisations. [19894]

  Mr. Battle
  One of the key aims of the Government is to maximise the benefits from our research base, whose excellence is widely recognised.
  306
  We have already made a number of announcements since the election demonstrating our commitment in this area, for example the establishment of four new Faraday Partnerships, the extension of TCS (the Teaching Company Scheme) and the Foresight LINK Awards.

  The President of the Board of Trade has also instituted the President's Partnership Prize as an accolade to those universities who have achieved high levels of success in applying the results of their research to commercial problems.

  I am considering, as part of the Department's Comprehensive Spending Review, what more can be done to improve interaction between business and the science, engineering and technology base.

  Industrial Enterprises
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total sum spent on the production and development of industrial enterprises in the most recent year for which figures are available. [19896]

  Mrs. Roche
  A breakdown of RSA grant offered to foreign and domestic enterprises by region is published each year in the Industrial Development Act 1982 Annual Report, a copy of which is available in the library of the House.

  Competitiveness
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she has taken to improve the competitiveness of British companies. [19899]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman).

  Liz Blackman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to improve the competitiveness of British industry. [19876]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is pushing forward her Competitiveness UK initiative. On 11 November, she published "A Benchmark for Business", an examination of our competitiveness at both national and sectoral level.

  My right hon. Friend has announced the creation of six industry-based Working Parties to advise her on how business and Government can improve UK performance. The work of these groups and of my right hon. Friend's Advisory Group on Competitiveness will lead to a Competitiveness White Paper next year.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she has taken to improve the competitiveness of small and medium businesses. [19902]

  Mrs. Roche
  Small firms form the bedrock of a successful enterprise culture. The sector is crucial to the UK's competitiveness and lies at the heart of the Government's economic strategy.

  We have already taken a number of steps to stimulate and sustain the competitiveness of small businesses. Measures include raising the quality of business support provided by Business Links to the standard of the best;

  307
  launch of the Enterprise Zone as the definitive Internet site for guiding small businesses to the most appropriate authoritative business-related information; and the bringing forward of a package of measures to promote a better payment culture.

  We also want future policies and priorities to be informed by business. SMEs are therefore an important element of the process of consultation and dialogue under the Department's "Competitiveness" initiative.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations she has received on minimum wage proposals. [19901]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have received a number of representations on our plans to introduce a national minimum wage.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on exemptions to the national minimum wage. [19906]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We plan to introduce a national minimum wage which does not differentiate by area, sector of employment, size of undertaking or by occupation. The Low Pay Commission has been asked to make recommendations about the possibility of exempting or applying a different rate to those aged under 26.

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of freezing approvals for gas-powered electricity generation plant on achieving the Government's target of 20 per cent. reductions in carbon emissions by 2010. [19903]

  Mr. Battle
  Any such assessment has to await the outcome of the Kyoto Conference, and detailed proposals for implementation of targets agreed internationally and, of the Review itself.

  Trade Contracts
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what account she takes of environmental aspects when pursuing trade contracts. [19904]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department ensures that environmental considerations are take into account in assessing applications from companies for support in pursuing overseas contracts.

  Energy (Single Market)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on progress in developing a single market in energy in the European Community. [19905]

  Mr. Battle
  Directive 96/92 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity entered into force in February this year and must be implemented by the majority of Member States by February 1999. This Directive requires Member States to introduce competition in electricity generation and allow at least 308
  25 per cent. of their market to seek alternative suppliers of electricity as a first stage, rising to around one third of the market by 2003.

  Political agreement was reached at the Energy Council on 8 December on the Gas Liberalisation Directive.

  GEC-Alsthom
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on her Department's role on the flotation of GEC Alsthom. [19884]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  While the flotation of GEC-Alsthom is a matter for the two shareholding companies, we want to see it continue as a successful world player in power generation, power transmission, and rail transportation with a substantial presence in the UK.

  Biotechnology
  Ms Whalley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has for public consultation in respect of the proposed European Biotechnology Patent Directive. [17804]

  Mr. Battle
  Information concerning the Commission's proposal was circulated widely, including by use of the Internet. As a result, over 150 organisations made their views known to me or my Department and took part in a consultation exercise. Organisations included those representing environmental interests, health and patient groups, animal welfare, the professions, industry, trade unions and religious groups.

  The debate which surrounded the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions highlighted a number of ethical issues which surrounded this technology. Therefore, I announced on 24 November 1997, Official Report, column 412, that my Department would be sponsoring a consultation initiative to seek public views on biological research.

  My ultimate goal is to engage members of the public in debate to enable us to assess the issues that are of wider concern. However, I feel that an important pre-cursor to this is to involve interested parties active in the debate to add to the credibility that an inclusive approach will offer.

  I shall be hosting an event in the New Year to discuss with groups active in the biosciences and science communication how we can best develop the public activity, which is planned for next summer.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Government plans to respond to the 5th Report of the Science and Technology Committee of Session 1996–97 (HC 373), on the Cloning of Animals from Adult Cells; and if she will make a statement. [22105]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I welcome the careful consideration which the committee gave the issues raised following the announcement of the successful cloning of "Dolly" from adult sheep cells. The Government's response emphasises that the Government will strive to ensure that the debate on the ethical issues surrounding biosciences keeps pace with advances in these technologies, both at national and
  309
  international level. The Government's response has been published today and copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of consents for further gas-fired power stations. [17952]

  Mrs. Beckett
  It was announced on 3 December that I propose to defer decisions on outstanding applications until the work of the Review announced on that day has been completed.

  Defective Products
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what cost analysis has been undertaken on European Council document COM (97) 478 on the approximation of laws for defective products; and what domestic legislation this document will entail. [18477]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  An initial consultation of farming interests by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) suggests that the main costs to agriculture producers will be those associated with insuring against potential product liability claims, and may be fairly low. MAFF will shortly be carrying out a full consultation on the likely costs to the industry.

  If adopted, the proposed amendment to the 1985 Product Liability Directive would most likely be implemented in the United Kingdom by regulations under the European Communities Act 1972 amending Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (which implements the 1985 Directive). The 1985 Directive was implemented in Northern Ireland by the Consumer Protection (Northern Ireland) Order 1987.

  Export Credits
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the(a) claims and (b) recoveries on ECGD business were attributable to exports and defence related equipment for the financial years (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94, (iii) 1994–95, (iv) 1995–96 and (v) 1996–97. [19746]

  Mrs. Roche
  From readily available information, the following figures have been extracted:

  Per cent.

  Claims

  Recoveries

  1992–93

  10.97

  6.86

  1993–94

  13.78

  2.36

  1994–95

  31.62

  2.68

  1995–96

  36.41

  4.34

  1996–97

  20.98

  1.89

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she has taken to establish the (i) status and (ii) costs of millennium compliance for(a) the European Commission and (b) the European Parliament. [19195]
  310
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 4 December 1997]: The UK Government take the issue of millennium compliance extremely seriously, which is why at the Telecommunications Council meeting on 1 December I drew attention to the need for analysis and preparation both within the public and private sectors. However, the particular matter raised here is one for the European Commission and the European Parliament.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the number of computer professionals needed to solve the year 2000 computer compliance problem for the SME sector; how many she estimates are currently available; and if she will make a statement. [19262]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 8 December 1997]: The Government have made no estimate. Some industry specialists estimate that between 30,000 to 50,000 additional skilled IT staff will be required. Action 2000, the Government's new initiative to help businesses tackle the century date problem, will be supporting programmes to address this issue.

  Enterprise Zones
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the cost has been of the enterprise zone system which provides information on the Internet for small firms. [19581]

  Mrs. Roche
  The cost of developing and launching the first phase of the Enterprise Zone, which went live on 4 November, was £46,000. A maximum budget of £200,000 has been allocated from existing resources for the present financial year to cover the costs of further development, and of maintaining and publicising the site.

  Export Licences
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when her Department will publish the results of its consultation on export licences. [20036]

  Mrs. Roche
  As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated on 5 June 1997,Official Report, column 236, copies of the responses to the consultation document on strategic export controls (with the exception of two for which confidentiality was requested), were placed in the libraries of both Houses in February of this year as well as the library of the DTI, where members of the public could arrange to see them. In the same statement, the President of the Board of Trade announced that copies of these responses would henceforth also be available on request from the Department's Export Control Organisation.

  We have since been considering the responses carefully as part of the DTI-led review of strategic export controls and expect to set out our proposals during the current parliamentary session.
  311
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will provide details of the export licences(a) granted since 1988 and (b) pending for the export of tear gas and plastic baton rounds to Kenya. [20054]

  Mrs. Roche
  These goods, and others, are controlled under different entries in Part 1 of Schedule III to the Export of Goods (Control) Order which are known as the ratings for these goods: tear gas under entry ML7; and plastic baton rounds under entries ML3 or PL5018.

  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the following results were obtained.

  As of 9 December 1997, 61 standard individual export licences are recorded as having been issued since 1 January 1991 for the export to Kenya of goods with these ratings. Since 1 January 1994, no Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) have been issued for the export to Kenya of such goods.

  Number of standard individual export licences covering the export to Kenya of goods with this rating

  Rating

  Number

  ML7

  0

  ML3

  49

  PL5018

  12

  However, this information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  It would entail disproportionate cost to determine which, if any, of the licences on which data are set out in the table covered the specified goods. Similarly, information on any standard individual export licences and/or OIELs for the export to Kenya of the specified goods that may have been issued before these dates could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In addition, goods with the relevant ratings may have been exported to Kenya under the following Open General Export licences: OGEL (export after repair: military goods) and OGEL (export after exhibition: military goods), both of which were first issued on 1 March 1994.

  As of 21 November 1997, two applications for standard individual export licences for the export of Kenya of goods with one or more of the relevant ratings were awaiting a decision and none for Open Individual Export Licences with this coverage.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will provide details of export licences granted to Sound Day Corporation for the export of anti-riot equipment, tear gas canisters and plastic baton rounds to Kenya since 1988. [20055]
  312
  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the following results were obtained.

  As of 12 December 1997, no standard individual export licences are recorded as having been issued to Sound Day Corporation since 1 January 1991; and no Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) have been issued to this company since 1 January 1994.

  However, this information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Information on any standard individual export licences and/or OIELs that may have been issued to this company before these dates could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  India Desk
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff there are on her Department's India Desk. [20946]

  Mrs. Roche
  Currently 13 people are allocated to the India Desk.

  Investment
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the multilateral agreement on investment. [20704]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 15 December I997]: The Government support the general aims of the proposed MAI and are working to achieve a successful outcome to the negotiations by next April. We are aiming for a comprehensive, multilateral and legally binding agreement providing high standards of investment protection and liberalisation of investment regimes, based on the principle of non-discrimination against foreign investors, and with effective dispute settlement procedures. This Government have pressed for the MAI to take account of environmental and labour concerns.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's forecast of changes in employment levels in the British steel industry over the next year. [20893]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: This is a diverse industry with many companies, the great majority of which do not themselves publish predictions about future employment. In these circumstances, the Government make no such forecast. Indeed, no Government have ever produced forecasts of levels of employment in the private sector.

  Post Office
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the number of crown post offices, the types and numbers of other main offices, the number of sub post offices, the number of crown offices closed and the number of closed offices converted into each type of
  313
  other main office or sub post office in each year since 1989. [21270]

  Year to end March

  Crown offices

  Company franchise post offices

  Independent franchise post offices

  Modified sub post offices

  Other sub post offices

  1989

  1,493

  0

  0

  0

  19,537

  1990

  1,339

  0

  0

  153

  19,379

  1991

  1,167

  3

  0

  315

  19,153

  1992

  1,019

  28

  0

  438

  18,675

  1993

  917

  78

  0

  498

  18,465

  1994

  800

  120

  0

  576

  18,286

  1995

  699

  164

  0

  646

  18,098

  1996

  653

  190

  0

  677

  17,894

  1997

  606

  209

  25

  686

  17,725

  Toys
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by what procedures her Department ensures that the grants which they award to small toy producers to exhibit at trade fairs are spent completely in the interests of the recipient by the British Toy and Hobby Association. [21264]

  Mrs. Roche
  Grants are paid to the British Toy and Hobby Association, and to other intermediaries, on receipt of a signed claim listing the names of the eligible firms in their group and the amounts owing. We seek confirmation from intermediaries' auditors once a year that all their claims are in order and that moneys have been passed on to eligible firms. We also audit a random sample of events to check that intermediaries like the BTHA have discharged all their obligations to the Department.

  Telephone Fraud
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many complaints concerning telephone fraud her Department has received in each of the last three years. [20965]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: From readily available records, I can state that my Department received one complaint concerning telephone fraud in 1995, five complaints in 1996 and two complaints in 1997.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will establish a public inquiry into domestic telephone fraud. [20966]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 16 December 1997]: Oftel has over the past year carried out detailed investigations with BT into complaints of organised network fraud on telephone services. Oftel is continuing its investigations but has no evidence of organised network fraud. I am confident that Oftel take network security issues very seriously. My Department therefore has no plans at present to establish a public inquiry into domestic telephone fraud.

  Working Time Directive
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by which date she expects to enact the European Working Time Directive. [21387]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  We shall implement the Directive without any avoidable delay.
  314
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers are as follows:

  Businesses (Assisted Areas)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many businesses have moved from unassisted to assisted areas in the last three years; and what figures she has collated in respect of the Chorley constituency. [21496]

  Mrs. Roche
  There are no data available on the number of businesses moving form unassisted to assisted areas.

  The Government does, however, publish a wide range of data on financial assistance to companies in assisted areas in the Industrial Development Act 1982 Annual Report. This information is presented to Parliament pursuant to sections 11 and 15 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. Copies of the reports for the last three years are available in the Library of the House.

  Opencast Mines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many open castmines currently operate in the United Kingdom. [21389]

  Mr. Battle
  At the end of November 1997, there were 84 producing opencast coal sites in the United Kingdom.

  Gulf States (Visits)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to visit(a) Abu Dhabi, (b) Dubai and (c) Oman. [21859]

  Mrs. Roche
  None at present, but the DTI Ministerial overseas visits programme is constantly under review.

  Launch Aid
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on Launch Aid. [19889]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government will continue to assess any application for launch aid on its individual merits. As I said when I announced the Government's investment in Rolls-Royce's Trent engine programme, consideration of future applications for this kind of support for the civil aviation industry will be informed by our commitment to public/private sector partnerships.

  The Government currently receive receipts from the aerospace industry from past launch aid of more than £100 million a year. The investment in Rolls-Royce Trent engine programme should, if successful as I fully expect, yield a commercial rate of return to the country.
  315

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the Answer to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) of 2 December 1997,Official Report, columns 163–64, if she will arrange for the Report on the Guidelines for the Management of Civil Plutonium to be placed on the Department's internet site. [21674]

  Mr. Battle
  I have arranged for the Guidelines for the Management of Civil Plutonium, as applicable to the UK, to be placed on the Department of Trade and Industry's Internet site at http://www.dti.gov.uk.

  Energy Council
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the outcome of the Energy Council meeting on 8 December [22083]

  Mr. Battle
  The Council considered several issues and received reports on matters of interest. I represented the UK.

  Council reached political agreement on a draft common position on the gas liberalisation directive. The main elements of the agreement include a requirement for a minimum initial market opening of 20 per cent., increasing to 28 per cent., after five years from entry into force and 33 per cent. after ten years. All gas-fired power generators will, from the beginning, be able to obtain competitive supplies. Initial thresholds for eligible industrial customers were set at 25 million cubic metres (mcm), dropping to 15 mcm after five years and 5 mcm by year ten. Member States were given the option to introduce separate arrangements for the inclusion of industrial combined heat and power producers.

  The agreement also includes provision for eligible customers and third party suppliers to have access to gas transportation networks and requires Member States to put in place an independent authority to settle disputes about access. Network companies will be required not to abuse information received from third parties and to publish the main commercial conditions for use of their network. The agreement also contains provisions to provide access to upstream pipelines in a manner which takes account satisfactorily of the particular nature of upstream activity.

  The draft common position recognises that market opening could lead to transitional problems for major gas companies and allows Member States, subject to clearance by the Commission, to agree to the possibility of their companies refusing network access where competition leads to serious financial difficulties in respect of long term take or pay contracts. Transitional arrangements will also be available to countries or areas of countries without a developed gas supply infrastructure (the latter subject to Commission authorisation) where the immediate implementation of the directive would create difficulties concerning the promotion of investment in gas networks.

  The Government welcome the agreement reached as a first step in opening the EU market for natural gas. Liberalisation will boost EU competitiveness and bring the UK new opportunities for trade, investment and employment. The draft common position is compatible
  316
  with the existing competitive arrangements in the UK market. The proposal will be submitted to the European Parliament for consideration during the UK Presidency once a formal common position has been adopted.

  The Council received a presentation from the Commission on a White Paper and Action Plan on a strategy for the future of renewable sources of energy and a reached common position on a Council decision concerning a multinational programme for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the Community—ALTENER II. A two year programme with a budget of 22 mecu was agreed. I gave my full support to the ALTENER II programme which I regard as an important element in the Commission's proposals to increase the use of renewable energy sources.

  Council approved a resolution on combined heat and power. The resolution welcomed the publication of a Community strategy to promote CHP recognising its positive contribution to environmental policies particularly towards the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and invited the Commission to continue its work.

  Council approved a proposal to extend the SYNERGY programme aimed at the promotion of international cooperation in the energy field. A one year extension with a budget of 5 mecu was agreed subject to formal receipt of the European Parliaments opinion.

  In addition, the Council received presentations from the Commission on its proposal for a Council decision for a multiannual energy framework programme for actions in the energy sector, and a progress report on the Energy Charter Treaty.

CABINET OFFICE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) if he will list those companies invited to tender for licensing rights for the Millennium Exhibition indicating which companies submitted tenders; and which companies submitted tenders uninvited; [20695]

  (2) when he expects to announce the appointment of a company to market the licensing rights of the Millennium Exhibition; [20694]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of the invitation to tender for licensing rights for the Millennium Exhibition; [20667]

  (4) how many companies were invited to tender for licensing rights for the Millennium Exhibition; by what date tenders had to be submitted; and how many companies tendered; [20693]

  (5) in which publications in the EU the invitation to tender for licensing rights for the Millennium Exhibition was advertised. [20668]

  Mr. Mandelson
  On 17 July 1997 the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) advertised in the Official Journal of European Communities (OJEC) for expressions of interest from companies to manage the licensing of merchandise for the Millennium Experience. The NMEC contacted ten companies drawing their attention to the
  317
  OJEC advertisement. Those wishing to be considered for invitations to tender were required to submit standard corporate documentation by 29 July. Four expressions of interest were received—two from companies whom NMEC had contacted and two from companies not contacted directly by NMEC. In 12 August NMEC invited all four to tender, seeking written submissions by 26 August. Two companies submitted full bids.

  Subsequently the NMEC has reviewed the option of conducting licensing through in house resources. The NMEC expects to take a final decision shortly on the preferred approach. In the meantime, I have placed in the libraries of the House copies of the OJEC advertisement and copies of the NMEC's Invitation to Tender.

  It is not normal business practice to reveal the names of companies who bid for, but who are not awarded, contracts. To do so runs the risk of damaging their competitive position in their particular markets. It is also the case that European Union regulations stipulate only that the name of the winner of contracts be announced. Nevertheless, for the future, I can confirm that at the initial stages of competitive tendering exercises, the NMEC will ask companies to indicate whether or not they are content for their names to be revealed.

  Overseas Visits
  Jacqui Smith
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the overseas visits he has made, indicating the date and purpose of the visit in each case. [21580]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have visited:Paris from 17–18 July, for discussions with ministerial counterparts and others, and to speak at a seminar arranged by the British Council;
  Germany from 11–13 September, for discussions with ministerial counterparts and others in Bonn, and to attend the Club of Three meeting in Munich;
  Rome from 9–10 October, for discussions with ministerial counterparts and others, and to deliver a lecture at the Institute of International affairs; and
  France from 27–28 November, for discussions with ministerial counterparts and others in Paris, and to visit Futuroscope in Poitiers in my capacity as minister responsible for the Millennium Experience at Greenwich.

  My discussions have concentrated largely on EU-related issues of mutual interest.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Access to Information
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his oral answer of 11 December 1997, Official Report, column 1193, on access to information concerning grants to farmers and landowners, if access to the nature and the amounts of grant or subsidy will be included. [21249]

  Dr. David Clark
  All such information held by the public authorities concerned would be within the scope of the proposed Freedom of Information Act set out in the White Paper "Your Right to Know". Whether the information could be disclosed in particular cases would depend on whether it passes the substantial harm and public interest tests integral to the Act's access provisions.
  318

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those departments, agencies and non-departmental public bodies who had not provided him with a completed, fully costed and prioritised plan for dealing with their millennium computer compliance problems by(a) 1 November and (b) 1 December. [21553]

  Dr. David Clark
  Plans were sought from central Government Departments and agencies, and all had responded by the time I made my statement on 27 November 1997,Official Report, column 1104–05.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what problems to date have been encountered across government as a consequence of the millennium computer compliance problem; and if he will make a statement. [21551]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the assessment in the statement I made to the House on 27 November. I have also written to departments asking for further information on three particularly important issues: the need to ensure that plans are not impeded by the possibility of skill shortages; the need to look at embedded chips in timing and other control devices; and, ensuring contingency plans are in place.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the areas of the public sector for which he has responsibility for assessing and guiding the progress towards computer millennium compliance; and if he will make a statement. [21547]

  Dr. David Clark
  I am responsible for co-ordinating activity by central government departments and agencies. These are the 137 organisations listed in the Year 2000 plans which I placed in the Libraries of the House and published on the Internet following my statement to the House on 27 November.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if millennium computer compliance problems in the public sector will be triggered on the date 9 September 1999; and if he will make a statement. [21552]

  Dr. David Clark
  The comprehensive guidance by the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency to departments and agencies explained that dates other than 1 January 2000 might affect systems. Departments and agencies are thus aware that their systems audits must take this into account.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his oral statement on Computers and the Century Date Change of 27 November,Official Report, column 1104, what margin of error is attached to the £370 million total cost estimated; and if this figure includes expenditure on resolving the embedded chip problem in all Government Departments. [21548]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 27 November. I indicated that I would be monitoring progress being made by departments and agencies. That will include any amendments to their cost estimates.

  I also wrote on that day to colleagues about a number of follow-up issues, including the need to ensure that all plans properly addressed the embedded chip issue.
  319
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the dates in 1998 on which he intends to make his quarterly statement updating progress in dealing with the millennium computer compliance problem in the public sector; and if he will make a statement. [21550]

  Dr. David Clark
  I intend to report progress in dealing with the millennium computer compliance problem in Government Departments and agencies to the House on a quarterly basis, starting in spring 1998.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his policy on the final date by which millennium computer compliance across the public sector should be completed; and if he will make a statement. [21546]

  Dr. David Clark
  I would refer the hon. Member of the statement I made to the House on 27 November. The guidance to departments and agencies makes clear that account should be taken of dates other than 1 January 2000 which might affect systems.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is his estimate of the total annual expenditure on information technology systems across(a) central Government and (b) the rest of the public sector; and if he will make a statement. [21549]

  Dr. David Clark
  The latest estimate I have of IT spend for central Government is approximately £2.5 billion per annum. The figure for the rest of the public sector is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Pensions
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans her Department has to ensure that all local authorities introduce full disregard of war pensions in respect of council tax; and if she will make a statement. [13148]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The disregard of War Pensions by local authorities applies to Housing Benefit as well as Council Tax Benefit. We are reviewing Housing Policy, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as part of the modernisation of social security. All aspects of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are open to review, including disregards.

  Carers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of people who act as carers for others; and what is her estimate of the numbers in each of the next three years. [20673]

  Mr. Denham
  The 1990 General Household Survey indicates that around 6.8 million people in Great Britain provide some care informally for elderly or disabled relatives or friends. No assessment has been made of future numbers.
  320

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in each local authority area register will be receiving council tax benefit if each local authority raises its expenditure to the provisional capping limit announced in the local government settlement on 2 December. [20565]

  Mr. Field
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The average number of Council Tax Benefit claimants would be approximately 35,000 higher in England, if each English local authority raised its expenditure to the provisional capping limit announced in the local government settlement on 2 December.

  Notes:

  1. The figure is rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  2. Modelled using 1995–96 Family Resources Survey data uprated to 1997–98 prices, benefit and earnings levels, and provisional 1998–99 Council tax levels.

  Retirement (Women)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the percentage of women retiring in(a) 1998, (b) 2015, (c) 2035 and (d) 2045 who will be entitled to a full category A retirement pension. [20808]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 December 1997]: The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  The pensions review is one of the Government's key priorities. As part of the review we will be looking at ways to narrow the pensions gap between men and women so as to give women more security in retirement. We are also seeking to raise awareness of pensions issues.

  As at September 1997, of women who are aged 60 within the previous year and are in receipt of any Retirement Pension, 15 per cent. are in receipt of a full Category A Retirement Pension. Projections in the same form for future years are not available.

  Assumed percentage of women at minimum pension age who have own entitlement to retirement pensions and the average rate of entitlement as a percentage of the standard rate

  Per cent.

  Financial year of reaching pension age

  Assumed percentage with own entitlement

  Average rate of benefit

  2000–01

  80

  75

  2005–06

  90

  78

  2000–11

  100

  83

  2015–16

  100

  88

  2020–21

  100

  91

  Note

  Figures in table are from the report of the National Insurance Fund Long Term Financial Estimates by GAD on the 3rd Quinquennial Review under Section 137 of the Social Security Act 1995.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.
  321

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1997,Official Report, column 533, on invalidity benefit, what estimate she has made of the amounts and the proportion of the savings in (a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97 on invalidity benefit which have been made in each Welsh benefit district. [21095]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested as it is not possible to estimate accurately the proportion of the savings accruing from the introduction of Incapacity Benefit in each Welsh benefit district.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated saving in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 from the introduction of incapacity benefit. [21576]

  Mr. Denham
  The estimated savings from the introduction of Incapacity Benefit are in the table.

  Year

  Savings1 (£ million)

  1997–98

  1,350

  1998–99

  1,830

  1999–2000

  2,190

  1 Cash terms.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the growth in expenditure on disability benefits since 1979 is attributable to recipients who are(a) above pension age, (b) within five years of pension age and (c) children. [21522]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information that is available on caseloads for Attendance Allowance and Mobility Allowance in 1979 and Disability Living Allowance for 1997 is given in the tables below. These benefits provide help to disabled people with the extra costs incurred because of the effects of their disabilities. Expenditure on these benefits has increased in real terms by 926 per cent. from 1978–79 to 1996–97.

  People in receipt of attendance allowance at 31 December 1979

  000

  Higher

  Lower

  All

  Men

  All ages

  49

  69

  118

  Under 16

  11

  16

  27

  60–64

  4

  5

  9

  65 and over

  20

  25

  45

  Women

  All ages

  74

  94

  168

  Under 16

  8

  16

  24

  60–64

  5

  6

  11

  65 and over

  49

  59

  108

  All persons

  All ages

  123

  163

  286

  Under 16

  19

  32

  51

  322

  People in receipt of attendance allowance at 31 December 1979

  000

  Higher

  Lower

  All

  60–64

  —

  —

  —

  65 and over

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Estimated from a 100 per cent. count of statistical records, adjusted to reflect the extent to which they overstate the number of live cases.

  Note:

  1. Attendance allowance extended to children under two years of age in 1990.

  People in receipt of mobility allowance at 31 December 1979

  000

  Men

  Women

  All

  Mobility allowance

  56

  57

  113

  All ages

  —

  —

  16

  Under 15

  —

  —

  9

  60 and over

  —

  —

  —

  Vehicle scheme

  —

  —

  24

  All ages

  —

  —

  —

  Under 15

  —

  —

  —

  60 and over

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  100 per cent. data.

  People in receipt of attendance allowance at 31 August 1997 age 65 and over

  000

  Higher

  Lower

  All

  Men

  158

  179

  337

  Women

  347

  515

  862

  All persons

  505

  694

  1,199

  Source:

  5 per cent. data.

  People in receipt of disability living allowance at 31 August 1997

  000

  Care component

  Mobility component

  Higher

  Middle

  Lower

  Higher

  Lower

  All awards

  Men

  All ages

  180

  282

  190

  651

  206

  980

  Under 16

  43

  59

  10

  27

  39

  118

  55–59

  17

  25

  28

  91

  13

  112

  60–64

  21

  31

  35

  124

  13

  146

  65 and over

  26

  38

  26

  176

  10

  194

  Women

  All ages

  183

  263

  216

  657

  173

  944

  Under 16

  27

  38

  7

  18

  21

  75

  55–59

  21

  27

  35

  95

  15

  121

  60–64

  24

  32

  36

  116

  13

  139

  65 and over

  30

  43

  31

  176

  11

  197

  All persons

  All ages

  363

  545

  407

  1,307

  379

  1,924

  Under 16

  71

  98

  17

  45

  59

  192

  55–59

  38

  52

  63

  185

  28

  233

  60–64

  45

  62

  71

  239

  26

  285

  65 and over

  56

  81

  57

  353

  21

  391

  Source:

  5 per cent. data.

  Note:

  1. Disability living allowance introduced in 1992 which replaced and extended help available through mobility allowance and attendance allowance for those under 65.
  323

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what millennium compliance problems have occurred to date in her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) other public bodies; and if she will make a statement. [21558]

  Mr. Field
  The Department has been aware of the potential impact of the Year 2000 for some considerable time and an analysis of our major systems was carried out in 1996. This analysis confirmed that DSS' major systems, for example the Income Support and Retirement Pension computer systems, would only require minor attention. This is because these systems store dates in a way that is unaffected by the year 2000. Prior to completion of the analysis, some systems using forward dates experienced minor problems which were rectified at the time.

  The Department is also working with all our third party suppliers to identify products and interfaces that may need remedial action.

  The DSS Year 2000 Project was established in July 1996. This project is co-ordinating extensive activity across DSS, and it is working within the Central Communications and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) approved guidelines for managing IT Projects. We are members of the CCTA Year 2000 Public Sector Group and use this forum to identify common issues and their solutions.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if her Department's estimates of the total costs of resolving the millennium compliance problem include costs relating to the embedded chip problem; and if she will make a statement. [21559]

  Mr. Field
  Yes.

  Hardship Payments
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants who have had benefits sanctions imposed for failure to attend or complete work placements under project work have applied for hardship payments; and how many of those have been successful. [21518]

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

  The number of jobseekers who applied for hardship payments in the period October 1996 to November 1997 was 77,000. The number of hardship awards made for the same period was 70,000. A breakdown of hardship awards made by reasons for sanction is not available.

HEALTH

  GP Fundholding (North Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the North Essex Health Authority finance allocated to GP fundholders was spent in other health authority areas; and how much of that was spent in the private sector and on which specialties in the last year for which figures are available. [18611]
  324
  Mr. Milburn
  Information is not held centrally on how much of their budget general practitioner fundholders in North Essex Health Authority spent in other health authority areas.

  Neither do health authority accounts identify GP fundholder expenditure in private providers of healthcare, except in aggregate with that in voluntary providers such as hospices and in general practices approved to provide secondary care.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in each health authority area were removed from NHS dentists' registers because they missed a registration period in each year since 1990. [19655]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested for 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 has been placed in the Library. The two year registration period for adults was first introduced in October 1990 and so no registrations could have lapsed until 1992–93.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people in each health authority area who have not made a dental appointment in the last 15 months. [19656]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 24 November 1997,Official Report, column 423.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of community health councils within the framework set out in his NHS White Paper. [20699]

  Mr. Milburn
  Community Health Councils have an important role in representing their local population's views in the health service and in providing information and advice to the public.

  Carbon Monoxide
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours training on(a) toxicology and (b) the effects of carbon monoxide is given to medical students; and if he will request the GMC to review its requirements. [20724]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally. Individual university medical schools determine their own undergraduate medical curricula in the light of recommendations from the Education Committee of the General Medical Council, which has a statutory responsibility to determine the extent of the knowledge and skill required for the granting of primary medical qualifications in the United Kingdom. We will ensure that the GMC is made aware of your concern about this matter.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what medical research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the health effects of long-term exposure to carbon monoxide. [20725]
  325
  Ms Jowell
  We have recently announced the funding of a £1 million joint research programme over 3 years with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions into the effects on health of exposure to air pollutants and damp in the home. The successful research proposals will be announced shortly and include 3 projects on carbon monoxide. We will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) towards the end of January with more details.

  In addition we are funding a major research initiative on outdoor air pollution with the Medical Research Council and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This programme of research began in 1994–95 and is due for completion in 1998–99. Three of the projects funded under this initiative are looking at carbon monoxide alongside other pollutants. However, none are primarily focused on the long term health effects of exposure to carbon monoxide. When the research programme is completed an evaluation of the effectiveness of the research will be made in order to assess where further research is needed.

  Young People in Care
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average length of time that young people are remanded in the care of the local authority by courts. [20692]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  During the year ending 31 March 1996, the latest for which figures are available, young people spent an average of approximately 10 weeks on remand, or committed for trial or sentence, in the care of local authorities in England.

  Eye Examinations
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individuals underwent a routine bi-annual eye examination in(a) each of the three years before 1989 and (b) each of the three years after 1989; and if he will make a statement. [21223]

  Mr. Milburn
  This information requested is not available since statistics collected on National Health Service sight tests do not show the name of the individual tested and no information was collected on private sight tests until 1993–94.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of young people(a) under the age of 16 years and (b) aged between 16 and 19 years who are in full-time education take advantage of the bi-annual eye test to which they are entitled; and if he will make a statement; [21222]

  (2) what proportion of those people whose income is just above social security benefit levels as defined by a means test take advantage of the bi-annual eye test to which they are entitled; and if he will make a statement; [21220]

  (4) what proportion of recipients of jobseeker's allowance take advantage of the recommended and free bi-annual eye test to which they are entitled; and if he will make a statement; [21224]
  326
  (5) what proportion of those people in receipt of disability working allowance take advantage of the bi-annual eye test to which they are entitled; and if he will make a statement; [21219]

  (5) what proportion of people on income support or family credit take advantage of the bi-annual eye test to which they are entitled; and if he will make a statement. [21221]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information is not held centrally in the form requested because statistics collected on sight tests do not show the name of the individual tested. The table shows the aggregate number of National Health Service sight tests received by each eligible group with an estimate of the total population of this group. Information is not yet available on income based job seekers allowance as this benefit was only introduced from 26 October 1996.

  Eligible group

  Number of NHS sight tests 1996–97

  Estimated population of eligible group

  Disability Working Allowance

  131,920

  9,400

  People entitled to help through NHS low income scheme and partners

  331,130

  550,000

  Income Support/Family Credit

  2,231,650

  6,330,000

  Children under 16

  2,353,700

  10,060,000

  Students 16–18

  515,320

  1,030,000

  1 Subject to verification.

  Midwives
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what comparative studies his Department has made of the cost effectiveness of recruiting midwives from overseas compared with employing midwives currently on the register in the United Kingdom but not practising. [21035]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are not aware that the Department has carried out studies of this kind.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts and health authorities have implemented the NHS Executive recommendation for a minimum F Grade for midwives; and if he will list them. [21034]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on midwives' grading is not available centrally, but examples of developments following EL(95)77 are quoted in the Written Evidence from the Health Departments for Great Britain to the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, Review for 1998. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the setting up of health action zones includes provision for developing woman-centred midwifery care as set out in the guidelines of "Changing Childbirth". [21245]

  Mr. Milburn
  One of the key objectives for health action zones is developing improved, responsive services that are sensitive to local needs. The Government expect health action zones to do this within the framework of national policy, and where proposals include maternity services they should be developed within the principles of responsive woman-centred care.
  327
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the measures announced by the Government to tackle violence, discrimination and stress in the NHS will address the particular problems and risks encountered by midwives in the community. [21247]

  Mr. Milburn
  The measures we are taking to tackle violence, discrimination and stress in the National Health Service apply equally to all staff including those who work in the community. We have also recently authorised work by the Royal College of Nursing and the NHS Executive with a view to issuing, by the middle of next year, good practice guidance specifically on violence to staff working in the community.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the arrangements for the funding and allocation of study leave for the continuing professional development of midwives. [21246]

  Mr. Milburn
  The arrangements for the funding and allocation of study leave for the continuing professional development of midwives are matters for local National Health Service employers in collaboration with education consortia.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to encourage pharmaceutical companies to apply for a Home Office licence to research and trial cannabis and cannabis derivatives for medical use. [21108]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is Government policy to support well founded medical research. It is for the pharmaceutical industry to make such applications for research in this area as it sees fit. The issuing of licences is a matter for the Home Office and officials have indicated that they are willing to meet pharmaceutical companies to sort out any problems in this regard.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will meet representatives of the BMA to discuss its reports on the therapeutic uses of cannabis. [21107]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to meet the British Medical Association. However, Department of Health officials will meet representatives of the BMA in the new year to discuss its report on the therapeutic uses of cannabis.

  Health Service Staff (Incomes)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking in conjunction with the Revenue authorities to monitor the amount of income NHS employees receive from non-NHS sources. [21020]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department has in the past commissioned the Inland Revenue to carry out surveys into the earnings of hospital doctors in Great Britain. Surveys were carried out in 1984–85, 1986–87, 1988–89 and 1991–92. The latest of these surveys covers the financial year 1993–94. Consideration is currently being given to future requirements.
  328

  Consultants (Private Work)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what methods his Department uses to monitor the level of private work undertaken by NHS consultants; [21019]

  (2) what action he is taking to encourage consultants who draw a full NHS salary to limit the amount of private work which they undertake. [21248]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service consultants are required to devote substantially the whole of their professional time to their NHS duties. Whole-time NHS consultants are permitted to have private practice earnings of up to a maximum of 10 per cent. of their gross NHS salary. Employers where necessary, may ask a consultant to produce fully-audited accounts as a means of certification of the level of private practice work.

  EU Working Time Directive
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the articles of the European working time directive from which the National Health Service will be exempted. [21386]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service as a whole is not exempt from the scope of the Working Time Directive, but doctors in training are exempt by virtue of Article 1.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) local authority and (b) private sector care homes there are in each of the London borough council areas. [21383]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on the number of local authority and independent sector (private or voluntary) residential care homes and independent nursing care homes in each local authority area is contained in table L1 of Statistical Bulletin "Community Care Statistics 1997 Residential personal social services for adults, England" (Ref. 1997/26 ISBN 1 85839 812 6) which was published earlier this month. Copies are available in the Library.

  Infertility Services
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to redress inequalities in access to infertility services. [21594]

  Ms Jowell
  The White Paper "The New NHS" outlines a number of steps which the Government will be taking to improve the consistency of service provision throughout the National Health Service. We will challenge and address variations not based on the health needs and wishes of local people. We will aim for maximum consistency while still allowing appropriate local and individual responsiveness.

  NHS Trust Boards
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trust boards in the north-west hold their meetings in private. [21683]
  329
  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote on 30 July to the chairmen of all National Health Service trusts asking them to ensure that board meetings are open to the public. With the agreement of Parliament, regulations will be confirmed early in the new year making open trust board meetings a statutory requirement. The use of closed sessions will be limited to areas where real harm to individuals or to the operation of the trust would result from an open meeting. Information is not held centrally on the extent to which trusts currently hold meetings in private.

  Health Service Staff
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the projected shortfall for(a) 1997/–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) hospital doctors, (ii) general practitioners and (iii) nurses. [21359]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the major acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May, how much each relevant health trust paid for each of the last three years in annual capital charges to the Treasury. [21402]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service trusts do not pay capital charges to Her Majesty's Treasury. However, they do repay the interest on their interest bearing debt and may be required to pay a dividend on their Public Dividend Capital. The amounts of interest and dividends repaid for the last three years for each trust is shown in the table.

  Major acute NHS private finance initiative scheme prioritisation Schemes selected to proceed

  £000

  NHS Trust

  1994–95 total interest and dividends

  1995–96 total interest and dividends

  1996–97 total interest and dividends

  Bishop Auckland Hospitals

  1,062

  691

  668

  Bromley Hospitals

  3,329

  3,372

  3,874

  Calderdale Healthcare

  1,984

  1,925

  1,906

  Carlisle Hospitals

  1,559

  1,072

  1,145

  Dartford and Gravesham

  3,310

  3,012

  3,347

  Greenwich Healthcare

  3,199

  3,536

  3,506

  Hereford Hospitals

  1,275

  1,232

  1,324

  Norfolk and Norwich Health Care

  3,471

  729

  792

  North Durham Acute Hospitals

  1,711

  1,064

  1,808

  South Buckinghamshire

  3,544

  3,599

  3,970

  South Manchester University Hospitals

  4,341

  3,449

  3,982

  South Tees Acute Hospitals

  4,166

  4,189

  4,931

  Swindon and Marlborough

  1,505

  1,578

  2,067

  Wellhouse

  4,462

  5,228

  6,350

  Worcester Royal Infirmary

  1,551

  1,837

  2,099

  330
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was, for each of the 15 major acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May, the actual and percentage charge in purchasers' annual revenue commitment to the schemes between outline and full business case. [21414]

  Mr. Milburn
  Commissioners do not make an annual revenue commitment to schemes at either the outline or full business case stage.

  As part of the business planning process for both publicly and privately funded schemes health authorities are required to confirm that the proposals are affordable within the wider context of their plans for healthcare provision. It is the responsibility of the National Health Service trust to ensure that the revenue commitments implied by a scheme can be met from the resources available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of staffed acute beds at NHS trusts with PFI developments prioritised by his Department since May(a) in 1996 and (b) projected upon completion of the scheme; and what is the percentage charge between the two in each case. [21415]

  Mr. Milburn
  Figures are provided in the table for the 15 prioritised schemes:the current number of staffed beds;
  the number of staffed beds required following the strategic investment appraisal conducted for the Outline Business Case (OBC); these are the number of beds which would have to be provided in a new hospital using public sector funding;
  the number of staffed beds projected to be provided in a new hospital under the PFI solution.

  Trust

  Total number of NHS beds at present

  Total number of NHS beds proposed under public sector route in OBC)

  Total number of NHS beds provided by PFI solution

  Norfolk and Norwich

  964

  701

  809

  South Buckinghamshire

  577

  537

  535

  Calderdale

  784

  594

  573

  South Manchester

  1,248

  881

  881

  Wellhouse

  1406

  406

  2406

  Dartford and Gravesham

  451

  400

  400

  Worcester

  563

  390

  390

  Bromley

  619

  525

  507

  Swindon and Marlborough

  622

  516

  516

  North Durham

  3588

  565

  454

  Carlisle

  508

  474

  474

  Hereford

  414

  340

  340

  Bishop Auckland

  375

  4223

  341

  Greenwich

  575

  621

  565

  South Tees

  1,051

  5955

  980

  Total

  9,745

  8,128

  8,171

  1 520 beds before the (publicly funded) Phase 1a of the redevelopment was completed.

  2 Including phase 1a.

  3 Until 1 August 1997 when closure of Shotley Bridge Hospital will mean 527.

  4 Excludes beds that are to be retained at Bishop Auckland under the PFI option.

  5 978 in OBC but adjusted down to 955 following further review of service activity.

  331
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the major acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May(a) the cost of renovating the existing facilities and (b) the current estimated cost of the PFI scheme. [21399]

  Mr. Milburn
  Reliable estimates of the cost for renovating existing facilities are not available.

  When the trusts which have had their Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes prioritised since May initially identified a case for change, as part of the outline business case supporting this, they produced a list of options. Following procedures set out in the National Health Service Capital Investment Manual for all NHS capital projects, these will have ranged from do minimum to extensive rebuilding. Renovation would have been the basis of one or more of the options considered but may have been combined with other actions such as improved maintenance, replacement of temporary buildings or partial new builds.

  Reliable estimated capital values of the PFI schemes are only available where the full business case has been given approval. A list of the capital values for these schemes is given in the table.

  Capital value of the PFI option

  £ million

  Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust

  194

  Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

  115

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust

  38

  Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust

  87

  Calderdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  77

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each lead consortium in each of the major acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May will receive for the use of the new hospitals per year upon completion. [21401]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 15 December 1997,Official Report, columns 59–60 for details of the unitary payments at the schemes at Dartford and Gravesham National Health Service Trust and Carlisle Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Since making that reply we are also pleased to announce that the scheme at South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust reached financial close on 16 December.

  The estimated unitary payments for South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust are set out in the table.

  Estimated annual unitary payment

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust £ million

  1998–99

  3.7

  1999–2000

  5.0

  2000–01

  8.2

  2001–02

  8.2

  2002–03

  8.2

  2003–04

  8.2

  2004–05

  8.2

  2005–06

  8.5

  2006–07

  8.5

  2007–08

  8.5

  2008–09

  8.5

  332

  Estimated annual unitary payment

  South Buckinghamshire NHS Trust £ million

  2009–10

  8.5

  2010–11

  8.5

  2011–12

  8.5

  2012–13

  8.5

  2013–14

  8.5

  2014–15

  8.5

  2015–16

  8.9

  2016–17

  8.4

  2017–18

  8.4

  2018–19

  8.4

  2019–20

  8.4

  2020–21

  8.4

  2021–22

  8.2

  2022–23

  8.2

  2023–24

  8.2

  2024–25

  8.2

  2025–26

  8.2

  2026–27

  6.0

  2027–28

  6.0

  2028–29

  6.0

  Total unitary payments

  244.6

  1. Figures in 1997 prices and are subject to indexation.

  2. Figures assume that the schemes become operational during 1999–2000, with the delivery of facilities management services beginning in 1998.

  3. The figures assume full availability and performance standards are met throughout.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate by scheme the subsidies paid by his Department under the smoothing mechanism to the 15 major acute PFI schemes prioritised by his Department since May. [21413]

  Mr. Milburn
  No money has been paid under the smoothing mechanism to the 15 prioritised major acute Private Finance Initiative schemes. National Health Service trusts will not receive money from the smoothing mechanism until the PFI hospital becomes operational.

  Computers (Century Date Change)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the recent report by Professor Mike Smith of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, on the issue of the millennium problem in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [21528]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is no justification for the assumptions on which the statement that up to 1,500 deaths will be caused directly by the Millennium problem was made. In many cases the basis of the figures used is unclear, and in others the figures are out of date.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monies will be made available to the NHS from the contingency reserve to ensure millennium computer compliance; and if he will make a statement. [21523]

  Mr. Milburn
  None is planned.

  At the present time it is assumed that Year 2000 activities throughout the National Health Service will be financed from existing budgets.
  333
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what millennium computer compliance problems have arisen to date within(a) his Department and (b) the NHS, and if he will make a statement. [21529]

  Mr. Milburn
  In the Department of Health the only problem in operational systems has arisen in electronic diary systems.

  The only problems so far identified in the National Health Service have been in Patient Administration Systems, appointment booking and recall modules, where appointments are being made for dates after 31 December 1999. This problem has been addressed by making such appointments manually.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the cost of resolving the embedded chip problem in the NHS; what proportion of the NHS information technology systems budget he estimates this will represent; and if he will make a statement; [21524]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of ensuring millennium computer compliance; and if he will make a statement. [21525]

  Mr. Milburn
  No estimates have yet been made.

  Information should become available after 31 March 1998 when each separate National Health Service Organisation will have completed detailed project plans, detailed inventory and budget estimates.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what risks to NHS patients will arise from(a) the millennium computer compliance problem and(b) the embedded chip problem; what steps he will take to ensure the safety of patients; and if he will make a statement. [21526]

  Mr. Milburn
  Because of the nature of its work, many failures of computer-based equipment in the National Health Service are potentially life threatening and contingency plans are in place to cope with such 334
  problems. The NHS Executive's Year 2000 Programme is working to eliminate risk through the identification and management of potential risks.

  The millennium problem is an example of such a potential failure with the advantage that the problem is well known, clearly defined and with a long lead time. It is a priority for NHS Organisations to develop contingency plans. As such, the risk to patient safety is likely to be minimal.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a model working plan for NHS trusts for dealing with the millennium problem and embedded chip problem; and if he will make a statement. [21527]

  Mr. Milburn
  Good practice guidance was issued to the National Health Service in October 1997 which identified the management actions needed to address the problem. More detailed guidance will be released to all NHS Year 2000 project managers by the end of December 1997.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department has current dealings with(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) suppliers which are not millennium compliant; and on what date his Department will cease to deal with (i) non-governmental organisations and (ii) suppliers which are not millennium compliant. [20533]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 12 December 1997]: All new contracts for the supply of goods and services to the Department and its Agencies will include a clause requiring the supplier to be millennium compliant or to provide goods that are millennium compliant. The Department will not enter into new contracts without this assurance.

  Where millennium compliance is necessary, the relevant existing suppliers have been asked to insert a new clause into their contracts with the Department, or to provide an assurance, that they, or the goods they supply, are millennium compliant. The Department will cease to deal at the appropriate time with existing suppliers who cannot provide this assurance.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Disability Discrimination Act: Exemption
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking, under subsections (2) to (10) of Section 7 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, to start the reduction of the exemption, from Part II of the Act, for employers with fewer than 20 employees.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone):My Lords, the Government announced on 3rd December a review of the exemption threshold, including a wide-ranging consultation exercise ending on 2nd March 1998.
We shall consider the responses carefully before deciding whether the Act's employment provisions should be extended to more employers and therefore their disabled employees and job applicants. Any change to the threshold has to be made within a year of the review beginning, that is, by 2nd December 1998.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply. I welcome the fact that since I tabled this Question the Government have announced the first stage: conducting the review with a time limit of nine months. Does she recall that during the passage of the Bill there was general agreement in Parliament that once the quota system had ended, there should be examination of the reduction of the figure of 20 in consultation with representatives of smaller firms?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is absolutely right in all that he said. The law states that we must hold a review before we make any changes to the threshold and that is what we are doing. The consultation document does not defend an exemption threshold. At this stage we are seeking views on the effects of the current threshold and various options, and we genuinely wish to hear the views of both employers—especially small employers—and those who represent disabled people.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell us exactly how people are defined as disabled? I ask the question because under the present national health rules if you apply to be a non-executive director and you tick the box to indicate that you are disabled you are guaranteed an interview.
720
In my experience, when these people are interviewed and one asks them what their disability is, one finds it can be very minor, but if they perceive themselves as disabled they are entitled to tick the box and qualify as disabled. However, when the Act went through this House we had considerable debate on the perception of disability. I wonder what the position is. It seems to me that there is a conflict between the perception of disability and some more objective test.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is difficult to produce objective tests. It could lead to many problems. The general view is that it is right that people should be involved in defining themselves as disabled, rather than leaving it to other people. Of course there need to be checks on whether people are trying to defraud the benefit systems. But I believe the right approach is by self-definition.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, first, if the extension is to be made to employers of 20 or fewer employees, it is important that there should be an attempt to have a definition. It is important that employers know to whom they are obligated. Secondly, is the noble Baroness able to tell the House what is the cost to employers of the extension to 20 or fewer employees?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the task force that has recently been set up under the chairmanship of my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Employment is looking at these questions, including definition.
Costs are also being examined, and in the process of consultation we are asking employers whether they can indicate what they perceive as the cost. The evidence from the United States is that the cost of employing disabled people is not very high.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Baroness that the consultation round is of prime importance, have the Government followed the course of the equivalent legislation in the United States where the figure has already been moved down to 15 employees?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. The Government are aware that in the United States of America there is a lower exemption level. I am sure that that ought to be taken into account when the consultation process has been completed.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, following the supplementary question put by my noble friend, can the noble Baroness say what checks, if any, are made on those who have disability motoring badges? Once they have the badges, are there further checks to find out whether the owner is still disabled?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that question but I shall write to the noble Lord.

Shopping Centres Out of Town
11.10 a.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What their policy now is on planning guidance with respect to out-of-town shopping centres.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government's policy is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 6, Town Centres and Retail Developments (PPG6), which aims to focus new retail developments in existing centres. Our response to the fourth report of the House of Commons Environment Select Committee on Shopping Centres, published in July 1997, reaffirmed our support for PPG6. We have no current plans to revise the policy.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer: it is reassuring in the light of some of the unwise comments made on this subject in various places, not excluding the press. May I press the noble Baroness a little further and ask what progress is being made with what might be called the other side of the problem? I refer to the stimulation of economic health within town centres. Have the Government considered the research done on town improvement zones? Also, have they considered the suggestion made by the Select Committee in the report to which the noble Baroness referred that there would be a great deal of benefit in giving tax exemption or relief for money given by individual companies to improve town centres?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are studying the various options that are available for improving and stimulating the vitality and viability of town centre development. That means that we have to look at a range of services that are available within town centres, not only retail developments but also leisure developments, and make sure that housing is available so that those centres become alive not just during the day but also at night. That has the added advantage of being able to use brownfield rather than greenfield sites for the housing that is needed, particularly for single person households. We are looking at ways of working together with local authorities and business interests within town centres to stimulate that sort of co-operative approach to planning for town centre vitality.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that out-of-town shopping centres not only take up a lot of rural land but also have an adverse effect on village shops. When those shops are forced to close down, great hardship is caused to villagers who do not own cars. Is not that a paramount factor that the Government should bear in mind?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In looking at how new retail developments should be assessed, PPG6 sets down tests for assessing applications. That involves the need for development and the sequential test as to whether there is a town centre site available; and puts on them a responsibility to consider the impact of the proposal on existing centres, including village shops and high streets.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the relief that some of us felt on hearing her enthusiasm for brownfield sites for developing housing, given the current alarming statements from the Government and in the press about the need to develop housing in rural areas? If we are to have any country left at all, let alone be allowed to do what we like in it, it is essential that we use urban areas for development.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, after the exchanges we had in your Lordships' House on the policy of green belts, I am in no doubt about the strength of feeling in relation to the need to preserve the countryside. The Government share that concern and the concerns about revitalising city centres. The two go together. As the House will know, we are currently considering how to meet the predicted increases in household growth and what the proper proportion should be of brownfield site development for that purpose.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the difficulties involved in city and town centre development is the almost impossible task of parking the car and the cost? Also in some instances women feel a danger in parking in multi-storey car parks. Surely the Government should be seeking to encourage local authorities to brighten up multi-storey, city centre car parks.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. In looking at this issue one of the areas that we are asking local authorities to consider is accessibility to shopping centres within towns by a variety of modes of transport. That involves looking at the parking provision—not just the number of spaces but the security of the parking provision. There is of course the other side of the coin in that the House of Commons Environment Select Committee recommended that the Government should tax car parking at out-of-town shopping centres. The question of the taxation of non-residential parking is one of the issues that many people raised in relation to the White Paper on integrated transport policy.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that while the Government's policy of siting shopping centres in town centres is satisfactory, the design of those centres frequently is not? Many of the cases coming before the Royal Fine Art Commission are of shopping centres which injure the urban environment, turn their backs on towns and cities in

723
which they are placed and constitute urban shopping ghettos which are harmful to the civic life of those places.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that local authorities and others involved in considering planning applications would be well advised to look at the aesthetics of what is being proposed. That will in turn contribute to the viability of what is being proposed.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, since the Minister was able to accept the desirability of shopping centres and housing on brownfield sites, can she now give the House a commitment that the Government will review their objective for the number of houses they want built on brownfield sites, because that target has caused great concern? Can she now say that the Government will review that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the target that caused great concern was the previous government's target, which we have not yet changed. As I said the other day, we are looking at what the target should be for the future. We shall be announcing the results of the review when it is concluded.

MPs: Standards of Conduct
11.20 a.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is an offence to bribe, or seek to bribe, a Member of Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the position is unclear. In 1976 the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life reported that neither statute law nor common law relating to bribery applied to a Member of Parliament and therefore such acts were covered by rules of the relevant House and should be dealt with as a breach of privilege.
However, case law has since challenged that position. Lord Nolan, in his first report on standards in public life, recommended that the Government should clarify the law. That question is currently being discussed in a Joint Select Committee on parliamentary privilege.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am really quite grateful for that Answer from the noble Lord. Does he agree that it is strange, even unacceptable, that a Member of Parliament should be put in jeopardy, and even disgraced, as a result of allegations, not made on oath and not subject to cross-examination, of accepting secretly improper payments of cash? Is it not even more strange that we should apparently lose sight of the question of whether or not it is wrong to offer such payments?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is referring to the proceedings in a Committee in another place on which it is probably
724
inappropriate that I comment. I can make it perfectly plain that corruption and bribery in public life are very insidious offences. They are much graver, in many ways, than offences which are punished at the moment by long sentences of imprisonment. The Home Secretary is extremely concerned to have the law clarified and put plainly so that a Member of either House will be in no doubt that to accept a bribe is not only wrong, but criminal; and, as the noble Lord implies, that those who offer or give bribes are equally criminal.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be much fairer if people so accused could stand trial in open court where witnesses could be cross-examined and there would be no opportunity for prejudicial pre-trial publicity designed to whip up public feeling in advance of any result, with a view to influencing that result? Surely that is a very unfair procedure.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that what the noble Baroness said was reflected in my earlier Answer. The Government believe that these offences should be plainly subject to criminal sanctions and penalties. If they were, then the criminal law would have its proper part to play.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, considering that the report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life by a committee under the late Lord Salmon had been before the previous government for 19 years, is it not shocking that they took no action on it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I think that is right.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, in 18 years in another place, and rather to my chagrin, I was never offered a single improper penny. Does the noble Lord agree that, whatever the position regarding a criminal offence may be, to attempt to bribe a Member of Parliament is certainly an offence against common sense because the overwhelming majority of Members are manifestly incorruptible and those who are not cannot deliver value for money?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have no personal experience of offering or being offered a bribe, so I am unable to comment on the standards of behaviour in another place. The truth is that most people in public life are not corrupt. That is the cruel and insidious nature of bribery and corruption because it demeans the whole public spectrum.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, when will the committee complete its deliberations? When will the Home Secretary in another place come to a decision? When will a law be on the statute book or are we to expect more prevarication?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there will not be any prevarication from this Government. The Select Committee is expected to report next year. The Home Office put out, under the previous government, a consultation paper. We intend to bring forward legislation as soon as sensible. There is no doubt at all that this is a serious matter. It is being seriously considered by the Home Office. I believe that all parties want this vice rooted out of public life. There is no prevarication at all.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, during the Select Committee's deliberations, can the noble Lord confirm that there will be a definition of the word "bribe"? Does a box of chocolates constitute a bribe? Where does it start and where does it stop?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no difficulty at all about defining "bribe". I spent many happy years in South Wales prosecuting local government corruption. We never had the slightest difficulty in demonstrating to juries what it was. I suppose that a box of chocolates might be a bribe, depending on its size or value.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He made the point that people making allegations are not at present cross-examined in any way and not subject to scrutiny in any great or embarrassing detail. The Minister's reply seemed to indicate future court proceedings. But is there any way in which people making allegations can be put through some sort of cross-examination system, possibly by the committee? Perhaps it is not within our power in this House to recommend that. Is there any way in which that aspect of the matter can be looked into sooner than the proposed law changes?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful because, as the noble Baroness implies, there is a distinction between the criminal law and proceedings in another place. With great respect, it seems to me that how the other place conducts itself is essentially a matter for that place. It seems to me common knowledge that certain questions have been asked and another place is reflecting on its procedures. Cross-examination, apart from being a great pleasure for the cross-examiner, has its virtues in bringing out the truth.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in view of the fact that our standards of public life in the United Kingdom are probably higher than those in most other places in the world, will the noble Lord resist any attempt from the other side of the Channel to establish a level playing field in this area?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the other side of the Bristol Channel. I am sure that standards in the west of England are just as high as those in south Wales.

Turkey: Prime Minister's Discussions
11.28 a.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions the Prime Minister has held with Mesut Yilmaz, the Prime Minister of Turkey.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister met the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Yilmaz, for an hour of talks on 9th December. The discussions focused almost exclusively on Turkey's relationship with the European Union and the likely outcome of the Luxembourg European Council with regard to Turkey's application for membership of the EU.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, did the Prime Minister find out exactly what it was that Mr. Yilmaz objected to in the European strategy for Turkey, which was subsequently established by the Luxembourg Summit? Has the Minister noted Mr Yilmaz's statement yesterday that Turkey will withdraw its membership bid by 12th June if the EU does not change its position? Will the Government confirm that adherence to international obligations, including the UN Charter, the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN international covenant on civil and political rights, the Geneva conventions and all the OSCE instruments on human rights are essential pre-conditions for any country before entering into negotiations to join the European Union?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Prime Minister's discussions with Mr. Yilmaz concentrated on a number of concerns about democracy, human rights and relationships with Greece, as we would expect. In relation to the noble Lord's point about Mr. Yilmaz's possible position with regard to withdrawing an application, the Prime Minister has written to Mr. Yilmaz to commend the European Council outcome as a balanced but necessarily conditional approach. The Luxembourg Council recognised Turkey's eligibility for European Union membership, but Turkey's candidacy has to be considered against the same criteria as apply for all other applicants. Turkey's human rights progress is essential to that, and Turkey has a long way to go to reach European standards. However, the UK is committed to working with Turkey to tackle these problems and we shall be doing so during our presidency. We have offered practical assistance to help the Turks fully to meet their international obligations, but that will be within the context of what was agreed at Luxembourg.
Lord Rea: My Lords, could not the Government ask Turkey, as a first step and as a sign that it is moving in the right direction towards improving human rights, to free Leyla Zana and the three other members of parliament who are at present held in prison for what most human rights advocates throughout the world feel are inadequate reasons? As another indicator of

727
Turkey's move in the right direction, could it not be asked to "unban" the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, from travelling to Turkey'?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have made a number of representations to the Turkish Government about the imprisonment of the Kurdish former Democracy Party members of parliament, including Leyla Zana. We have repeatedly stressed that the conviction of elected politicians for non-violent expression of their opinions can only damage Turkey's international standing. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have also made clear our views of the unacceptability of the ban on the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, travelling within Turkey.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her replies. Do the Government believe that the action taken by Turkey in northern Iraq last month was commensurate with any threat perceived by Turkey? If not, what lead are the Government taking to ensure that Iraq's territorial integrity is preserved?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we must accept that Turkey has a right legitimately to protect its borders, but we have made it clear to the Turks that we have concerns about the extent of its military involvement which we believe went beyond self-defence and was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi territorial integrity. My honourable friend Doug Henderson raised our concern about this issue with the Turkish Foreign Minister in Ankara on 13th October. That was followed by representations from the Chief of the Defence Staff and our embassy in Ankara to the Turkish military. However, we are pleased that a ceasefire was declared as of 26th November following, we believe, substantial pressure from ourselves and others. The next step will be to encourage the parties to resolve their differences through dialogue and reconciliation. We are working with the United States to bring the two parties together to the negotiating table.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether Cyprus was discussed at the meeting and, if so, does she agree that under the terms of the Zurich treaties, which are binding in international law, there is no way in which Cyprus can join the European Union without the consent of Turkey?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord is referring to the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Turkey. I have already mentioned that Cyprus was discussed during that meeting. The terms for the accession of Cyprus will be discussed at a meeting to be held in March, which will involve the foreign ministers. The points which the noble Lord has raised will be dealt with in detail then.
Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare: My Lords, may I join the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in asking the Minister to continue to press the case of the four elected members of parliament who are in gaol at the moment?
728
We should see those members of parliament in the Turkish Assembly, not in gaol. Many of us on this side of the House would never consider Turkey entering the European Union with its present policy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have already made it clear to all Members of your Lordships' House that we are pressing the Turkish Government on what we believe to be the wrongful imprisonment of those members of parliament to whom the noble Lord refers. I have also stressed to the House that it is Her Majesty's Government's view that Turkey has a great way to go on a number of different human rights issues. That is why conditionality was attached to the Turkish request for membership. I suspect that that is why the Turkish Prime Minister has expressed the disappointment that he has, but it is also why we must continue to discuss with the Turks the ways in which they can improve their human rights position before any accession.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that some of us are delighted and feel refreshed by the views which have been expressed by the other side of the House since those of us who were involved in debates in Strasbourg on Turkey were never assisted by Conservative Members at that time?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that we are all delighted if the House is able to speak with one voice on this important question. I am extremely pleased that the Opposition have been so supportive on the issue.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister also make representations to the Turkish authorities about the banning of Jonathan Sugden, the Amnesty researcher on Turkey, and on the need for greater transparency in admitting international human rights organisations to evaluate the human rights situation? Will the Minister also ask the Turkish Prime Minister as a matter of practical assistance whether Turkey will invite the OSCE to send a delegation to Ankara to see what help the OSCE might provide in solving the conflict in south-east Turkey, as it has assisted in conflicts everywhere else in the region?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the OSCE human dimension implementation meeting in Warsaw in November gave us the opportunity to examine how members states are implementing existing commitments. As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, there was widespread criticism at that time about Turkey's failure to honour a number of international commitments. Much of that criticism came from the United Kingdom Government. The United Kingdom Government will continue to press Turkey on all the issues where that is appropriate in terms of human rights and transparency in that country on human rights.

Mental Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
11.37 a.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Mental Health Act 1983 to provide greater access to hospital accommodation for mentally ill people; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Rowallan.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

European Communities: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Berkeley and the Lord Borrie be appointed members of the Select Committee.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Walker of Doncaster be appointed a member of the Committee in the place of the Lord Brooks of Tremorfa.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill
11.38 a.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clause 1,
Schedule,
Clauses 2 to 13.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Lottery Bill [H.L.]
11.40 a.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
730
I do so with great pleasure because I believe that this Bill will pave the way for the establishment of a people's lottery which truly benefits everyone throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. The proposals which it implements commanded wide support when they were first announced before the election, and they have continued to attract further support as they have developed. The White Paper The People's Lottery attracted nearly 600 responses, and on average 9 out of 10 of those commenting on particular proposals welcomed the reforms which the Government propose. I have today placed in the Library of the House a summary of those responses. The Government have considered them carefully and acted to improve their proposals in the light of them.
The National Lottery Bill introduces reforms in four main areas. It improves the operation and regulation of the lottery by creating an advisory body to help the Director General of the National Lottery to select the best operator, and by strengthening his arm with the introduction of a power to fine lottery licence holders. It establishes a new good cause for health, education and the environment and a new distributor—the new opportunities fund—to direct lottery money into initiatives which will bring long-lasting benefits to the country, in particular to the young and the disadvantaged. It improves the distribution of lottery funds. In future there will be clear strategies in each of the good cause sectors and the distributors (the Arts and Sports Councils, the National Lottery Charities Board and the Heritage Lottery Fund) will be able to be more pro-active to address the needs that those strategies identify. It will also simplify the application process and bring decision-making closer to the grass roots. Finally, the Bill establishes the national endowment for science, technology and the arts. The creation of NESTA shows our commitment to talent and creativity and our determination to create a better future for our scientists, engineers and artists.
Part I of the Bill concerns itself with amendments of the existing legislation, the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. At that time there was a broad consensus in support of a lottery. In opposition we sought to clarify and improve the 1993 Act, and indeed did so. Now we have the opportunity to give it a good shake to deal with some of the problems that we spotted back in 1993 and to help the lottery develop having had three years' experience of it. Those three years have been a tale of remarkable success. In that time £4.4 billion has been raised for the five good causes: the arts, sport, the built and natural heritage, charities and projects to mark the millennium. People in about 90 per cent. of households have played the lottery. Two-thirds play regularly. Many people already know of projects of direct interest to them which have benefited from lottery funds. This was all made possible by the 1993 Act. Having been critical at the time, I pay tribute to those noble Lords opposite who helped fashion it. I hope we can all agree that now is the time to improve it and reform it so that it better reflects the needs and priorities of the country. That is what this Bill is all about.

731
A Bill which amends existing legislation is never easy to follow so we have produced a draft showing how the 1993 Act will look as amended by the Bill to help the House's consideration of it. It is a scissors and paste job (if such a term is still relevant in this digital age) but I believe that it will be a useful aid for all involved, not least myself. Copies are being made available with the Notes on Clauses. Clauses 1 to 4 and Schedule 1 make changes to the arrangements for licensing and regulating the National Lottery. The Bill does not explicitly mention a not-for-profit operator, but I assure the House that it has always been and still remains our intention to seek a not-for-profit operator, if such an operator will ensure the best possible return to the good causes. There is no need to change the legislation to make this happen: the existing framework allows a non-profit operator to bid. The Director General of Oflot and the Culture Secretary will be doing all that they legitimately can to encourage such applicants, but the key criterion for award of the licence is the money raised for the good causes, which is as it should be.
The Bill does two things which will improve the process for selecting the operator and the regulation of the way the lottery is run. First, it establishes the lottery advisory panel on selection to help the director general select the next lottery operator in 2001 and subsequent licence holders. This means that the process of selection is objective, independent and more transparent. The members of the panel will be appointed by the Culture Secretary and will be well fitted to advise the director general by dint of their experience of the lottery market, lottery distribution or the interests of the consumer. The panel will he called into existence when needed and disbanded when the selection has been made. There is no suggestion in this provision that the director general's selection of the existing lottery operator was somehow flawed. Indeed, the NAO endorsed the selection process in 1995. Nor is there any diminution of the director general's responsibilities. He remains responsible for the process, the evaluation of bids and the award of the licence. The panel's role will be able to assist and advise him on this. It will provide him with expert help—something that I know the director general himself welcomes.
The director general has also welcomed—indeed, he has long asked for—the power to fine licence holders. At present if a licence holder breaches a condition of his licence the director general can either seek a court injunction or lob a nuclear grenade and revoke the licence. Now he will be able if there are serious licence breaches to impose a fine both as penalty and to recompense the good causes if the breach has reduced the amount of money flowing to them. Any fines levied will go into the distribution fund to the benefit of the good causes. The provisions will apply as soon as they are enacted, so the existing operator could be subject to fines under the existing licence. Camelot is aware of this and has been consulted. Neither I nor the director general has any reason to believe that such breaches are likely, but the Bill fills a gap in the regulator's armoury which was highlighted by the Select Committee on Public Accounts.
732
I turn now to Clauses 5 to 7 and Schedule 2 which establish a new good cause and the new opportunities fund and make adjustments to the percentage flows of money into the existing good causes. When we published proposals before the election to direct lottery money into health, education and the environment while maintaining our commitment to the existing good causes the response was phenomenal. This story has continued. Of those commenting on the specific proposals in the White Paper, 92 per cent. supported the introduction of the new good cause; 93 per cent. supported out-of-school activities and new technology training for teachers; and 96 per cent. supported the establishment of a network of healthy living centres. The Bill fulfils our commitments. It creates the new good cause and the body responsible for distributing funds to initiatives run under it. The three initiatives are not mentioned in the Bill. They will be named in the order made following passage of the Bill. It is done like that because these will be the first of many initiatives to be funded by the new opportunities fund, all of which will be subject to the widest possible consultation. The requirement for that consultation is built into the Bill.
But I am pleased to be able to give the House more information today about each of the initiatives already announced. Noble Lords will recall that our commitment was to provide £1 billion for these initiatives and NESTA between now and 2001. Today I am able to announce that we intend to do better than that. First, as to new technology training for teachers and librarians our original intention was that this should produce much needed training for nearly half a million teachers and librarians. But some respondents to the White Paper were concerned that teachers needed not just training in new technology but also the materials to use in the classroom. At the same time, the Libraries and Information Commission's report New Library: The People's Network highlighted the need to fund the digitisation of educational material held in public libraries so that it might be made available using the latest technology. I am more than pleased to announce that the original programme will now be expanded to provide money for the digitisation of educational and learning materials. In all, £300 million will be made available, £50 million of which will go towards providing content. We are giving teachers and librarians the skills and the materials and every school child in the country will benefit, as well as children and lifelong learners who use public libraries to help their studies.
The programme for out-of-school activities will receive in total £400 million from the new opportunities fund over five years. Of this, £200 million will help support the national childcare strategy which aims to make childcare available in every community that needs it by 2003. A further £200 million will provide homework clubs and out-of-school learning activities in half of all secondary schools and a quarter of all primary schools. Of that £200 million, £20 million will help enhance the childcare elements of these clubs. This is all in addition to the £80 million for childcare announced recently by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

733
Finally under the new good cause, we are today committing £300 million to healthy living centres. These centres will positively promote good health by providing advice and contact points on nutrition, exercise, anti-smoking measures and so on. Three hundred million pounds will be sufficient to establish a network of centres aimed at serving 20 per cent. of the population, focused in particular on those deprived areas where the need is greatest. The programme will be rolled out at a sensible pace; one of the themes of responses to the White Paper was that we should take time to evaluate and learn from experience, and this we will do. Funding for healthy living centres, and indeed for out-of-school activities, will therefore be spread beyond 2001. We want centres and clubs which are well-planned, properly supported and will last well beyond the period for which they will receive lottery funding.
The House will wish to be assured that we have paid proper attention to the needs of all parts of the UK. In the case of new technology training, funding will reflect the number of teachers and librarians. For out-of-school activities, we expect Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England to have funds allocated to them on the basis of population but taking deprivation into account; the kind of model which the National Lottery Charities Board has pioneered. Money for healthy living centres will be allocated on the basis of the population and relative need of each country.
The Bill provides the springboard for these initiatives, and others to follow. But we must move quickly. That is why, with the agreement of the existing distributors, money is already being set aside for the new good cause and NESTA, and the Bill at Clause 5 allows for the transfer of funds from the existing good cause accounts as from 14th October 1997, in accordance with the percentages established in the Bill.
I can also announce today that, following today's debate and in accordance with precedent, we intend to take steps to establish a shadow new opportunities fund from April 1998. Early in the new year, we shall be recruiting an interim chief executive and also advertising to identify a chairman-designate and members of the new body. It is vital that the new opportunities fund should be given a flying start. Establishing a shadow body will mean that the fund can invite bids towards the end of 1998 and money will start flowing during 1999.
The Bill provides that the Secretary of State should appoint the members of the fund. In doing so, we intend to consult a wide range of interested organisations for suggestions for candidates. We will also advertise the posts of chairman and members so that everybody with the necessary skills and experience has the opportunity to be considered. The Bill requires that the fund should have particular members able to make the interests of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England their special care. The fund itself will be free to determine its own procedures; in particular, it will be free, within the framework of directions which will be issued under the Act, to decide for itself whether to establish committees and if so what the remit of those committees should be.
734
We will, however, ensure, via directions, that there is proper representation of the interests of all parts of the UK on committees which have a UK-wide remit.
I have already mentioned that some respondents to the White Paper had stressed the importance of careful planning and a sensible rollout for out-of-school activities and, in particular, healthy living centres. Other concerns were also voiced which I should like briefly to address.
First, there were inevitably questions about where the money is coming from and our commitment to the existing good causes. The answers are simple: our forecasts of lottery income suggest that it is well on course to delivery £10 billion by 2001 rather than the £9 billion originally forecast. Camelot has recently endorsed this forecast. So we can direct £1 billion into the new good cause without undermining the original expectations of the five good causes. The percentages set in the Bill are designed to deliver this, but one aspect needs further explanation. The percentages for the arts, sport, charities and the heritage are set at 162/3 per cent. but we are leaving the millennium stream at 20 per cent. and setting the new good cause initially at 13 1/3 per cent. We intend to introduce in Autumn 1999 an order to switch these percentages. This means that the Millennium Commission has more of its share earlier to meet its cashflow commitments, but that the new opportunities fund will have £1 billion available to it in total by 2001, with the flow matching the likely profile of expenditure on the three initiatives. Our commitment to the existing good causes is therefore as firm as ever.
Secondly, some respondents questioned our commitment to the principles of additionality and arm's length decision-making. They need have no such concerns. Each of the initiatives under the new good cause is clearly additional to existing provision funded by taxpayers and all future initiatives will pass the same test. And, although the targets and framework for the initiatives will be decided by government, this will only be done after wide consultation and due parliamentary process. After the first order, orders to establish new initiatives will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. In addition, the new opportunities fund will invite and decide on individual applications completely free from ministerial interference, just as the existing lottery distributors do.
Many respondents expressed the hope that the new opportunities fund should be accessible and non-bureaucratic. I share that hope. We do not expect the fund to be large: it should be small and strategic, working with and through those organisations best placed to design and deliver the various initiatives which it will be asked to run. It could not work any other way.
I should now like to turn to Clauses 8 to 12 and Schedule 3, which contain our proposals for improving the way in which lottery funds are distributed throughout the country. The Bill gives lottery distributors two new powers which I know they will welcome: the power to solicit applications, and so to be more pro-active in ensuring that lottery funds produce

735
the greatest benefit for all: and the opportunity to delegate decision-making both within the body itself (to committees or to officers) and externally. This means, at one level, that we can streamline the system. At present, for many distributors all decisions have to be taken at board level. Once the Bill is enacted, distributors will be able to speed up decision-making and hoards will no longer be forced to consider thousands of pages of applications at their monthly meetings. I understand that since May 1995, the National Lottery Charities Board has received more than 60,000 applications. As small and community grants schemes come on stream, numbers may well increase. The Bill will help ease these pressures. It also means that other bodies with expertise in particular areas can he empowered to act on the distributor's behalf. This will be particularly important for the new opportunities fund, but will also help other distributors improve the speed and quality of their applications process. But the House can rest assured that the Secretary of State will use his direction-making power to ensure that these powers are exercised with a proper regard for accountability.
Each distributor will also be required to produce a strategic plan, identifying the needs which they want to address through lottery funds and showing how they intend to go about it. This has been sadly lacking in the past and I know that the distributors welcome the new approach. But I should stress that these plans will belong to the distributors. They will need to consult the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on them, but he will not approve them.
The response to these proposals as set out in the White Paper was overwhelmingly positive: 93 per cent. of those commenting supported the Government's approach. Many stressed the importance of improving the opportunities for local involvement, and for helping lottery funds to reach small communities and local groups. The Bill will help this, and will build in particular on the experience of the community grants scheme soon to be piloted in Scotland, as announced by the Prime Minister in October. Many also stressed the need for the distributors to work more closely together. Our White Paper had stressed this, too, but at that time we had not proposed any legislative change. But in the light of the weight of response to the White Paper we looked again to see whether there was more we could do. The result is Clause 10, allowing distributors with the Secretary of State's approval or Parliament's blessing, as appropriate, to pool any funds into joint schemes which might then be run by a single body. Such schemes might, as is proposed in Scotland, be for community grants. Or they might be for larger grants implementing a particular programme where many distributors have an interest but none has the clear lead. In this way, the Bill brings greater coherence and direction to the distribution of lottery funds. It brings the lottery closer to the people and makes the application process much more "user-friendly".
Finally, let me turn to Part II of the Bill which establishes NESTA. The creativity of the British people is one of our greatest strengths, but in recent times we have failed fully to exploit our creative potential.
736
Too many British innovations have been developed overseas because of a lack of financial backing for them here. Too many British scientists have left to continue their pioneering work in foreign laboratories. And too many young people with talents in science, technology and the arts have found the way barred to them. If we do not nurture our creativity, we have no right to suppose it will flourish and that we will see its benefits.
That is the justification for NESTA. Its role is threefold. We want it to help talented individuals reach their full potential; to help turn good ideas into good businesses; and to make everyone more aware of the essential role of science, technology and the arts in all our lives. These three objectives are set out in the Bill. Beyond this broad remit, NESTA will be free to determine its own programmes and priorities. The Bill provides a wide range of powers, to enable NESTA to respond flexibly in seeking to meet its objectives. Ministers will have no powers to direct NESTA's policies.
NESTA is an investment in our future. That is why we are establishing it with an endowment from the lottery to be invested for the benefit of future generations. I can today announce that on NESTA's establishment, the Secretary of State will provide it with an initial endowment of £200 million. The Bill leaves open the possibility of further endowments as NESTA's work develops, and also places NESTA under a duty to seek to raise funds from elsewhere. But this initial endowment alone should be enough to place NESTA among the top 10 grant giving endowment funds in the UK.
NESTA will be unique among lottery-funded bodies, relying on an endowment and donations from third parties rather than a stream of funding from the distribution fund. It is important, therefore, that its income from these sources is maximised. The Bill therefore provides for NESTA exemptions from corporation tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax and stamp duty. It also allows NESTA to benefit from tax-free donations through covenants and gift aid. These provisions reflect both its unique funding structure and its similarity in purpose to a charity.
As for the new opportunities fund, we intend to establish from April a shadow body with an interim chief executive, chairman and trustees-designate, to ensure that NESTA can start its work as soon as its powers are in place. Before appointing trustees, the Secretary of State is required under the terms of the Bill to consult bodies representative of those working in the fields of science, technology and the arts.
NESTA has received a very warm welcome since we published our White Paper. More than nine out of 10 respondents on the proposals supported its creation. Many of those positive responses paid particular attention to NESTA's unique role and the importance of avoiding duplicating the work of existing bodies. Respondents were especially keen to see NESTA focusing its work particularly where the fields of science, technology and the arts meet. The Government support those views wholeheartedly.

737
The National Lottery Bill is an innovative and reforming Bill. It will improve the way in which the lottery is run, increase the number of people who benefit from the money it raises and bring about a sea-change in the way this country views and nurtures talent and creativity. The funding commitments I have announced today mean that £1.2 billion will be finding its way into IT training, out-of-school activities and childcare, healthy living centres and NESTA over the next five years. For those keeping the tally, it marks a further stage in the realisation of our manifesto commitments to make the lottery work better for Britain. I have no doubt that in this House, and in another place, the Bill will benefit from expert consideration. It is a Bill which meets the people's priorities and which commands, overwhelmingly, the people's support. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
12.4 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for agreeing that the National Lottery was one of the undoubted successes of the previous government. It was set up to revitalise capital infrastructure for the arts, sports and heritage; to finance millennium projects; and to help the charities. Over three years, more than £4 billion has been made available for the five good causes. That is expected to rise to between £9 billion and £10 billion by 2001 when Camelot's contract expires. An astonishing 30 million people play the lottery every week, spending, on average, £3. Independent research shows that the UK lottery is the most efficient in the world, returning the highest amount in percentage terms to good causes and the Government, and the least profit to the operator.
The National Lottery, as set up in 1994, was based on clear, defensible principles. Most of the spending was on capital projects. Distribution was based on the hands-off principle, the Government specifying five good causes together with the share each would receive, and leaving it to the 11 independent bodies to distribute the money. A key stipulation was that the lottery should be additional to, not a substitute for, Exchequer grants. It should be spent on desirable things not being done rather than things already being done.
Additionality is not as straightforward as I think the noble Lord implied. It is not an addition to existing Treasury money; it is money spent on things that are not being done. Unless we stick to that principle, there is always the danger that lottery money will be used to substitute for existing money.
The new National Lottery Bill muddies the waters in all those respects. It establishes a sixth good cause run by a new opportunities fund to support initiatives in education, health and the environment—activities which already enjoy government funding. It abrogates the arm's length principle by giving the Secretary of State the power in Clause 6 to dispose of the extra £1 billion allocated to the new opportunities fund as he sees fit. It sets up a new organisation, NESTA, under government
738
control which, on the face of it, merely duplicates the work of other grant-giving bodies. On the pretext of making a highly successful operation more "accountable" and "transparent", it imposes new and potentially burdensome regulations, including fines, whose object, as stated in the White Paper, is to deprive the operator of "unnecessary profits" and ultimately all profits. I take it that that remains the Government's aim for the new contract in 2001.
Why have the Government decided to tamper with the current system, which was praised by the National Audit Office? I am afraid that the reasons are distressingly clear. The Government want to lay their hands on an extra £1 billion pounds to finance their own spending programmes for which they dare not raise taxes, and they cannot bear the idea of the operator making profits, however efficient and successful its operation.
There has been a long-standing consensus, dating back to the Rothschild Committee on Gambling in 1978, that lottery money might be used to support causes which are desirable but not essential, and therefore not justifying taxation. Tony Blair reiterated this principle only a few weeks ago when he said,
"We don't believe it would be right to use lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibility".
Yet this Bill proposes to use lottery money to train teachers and school librarians to use information technology, and also to set up homework clubs. Do the Government seriously claim that such steps to improve teaching skills and provide facilities for pupils to do homework are not part of their educational responsibilities, that they are on a par with the other good causes? Of course not. They are essential to realising their national curriculum targets. The Government already spend £296 million from the Exchequer to train serving teachers and librarians. Similarly, the DfEE already provides money for out-of-school initiatives. If extra funds are needed for these purposes they should come out of the education budget, not out of lottery money. Moreover, this is the thin end of the wedge. Clause 7(3) gives the Government the power to set up whatever new schemes they like. We shall pay particular attention to that in Committee and seek to limit that power.
Bereft of principle, the Government fall back on populism. They claim that this is the people's lottery and therefore must be spent on the people's causes. Which people? Responses to the White Paper showed overwhelming support for the new sixth cause as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. But of the 588 responses, 496 came from local authorities, schools and campaign and professional groups and only 92 from individuals—hardly the voice of the people. I wish we would drop the pernicious habit of justifying any policy, however devoid of principle or logic, by shoving the adjective "people's" in front of it, as though to criticise it were an offence against holy writ. This Bill is no more a people's lottery than the people's democracies of Eastern Europe were democracies. It is a government lottery, backed by vested interests.

739
The principle in these matters is very clear. If a policy is necessary it should be paid for out of taxes. If it is merely desirable it should not be enacted by the Government. The sixth good cause falls squarely between those two stools. The Government refuse to spend extra taxpayers' money on it, but presume to dictate how lottery money is to be spent. It thus breaches both the additionality and the hands-off principles which were integral to the 1993 Act.
The Minister denies that existing good causes will lose out. Although their share of the total will go down, the Government expect the revenue from the lottery to go on increasing, yielding an extra £1 billion above projections by 2001. This is highly doubtful. The Government seem quite oblivious to the possibility of lottery fatigue. Evidence from lotteries abroad shows clearly that sales can fall. For example, revenues from state lotteries in the USA show falls of up to 60 per cent. from the time they were started. In this country, lottery sales dipped from £5.2 billion in 1995–96 to £4.7 billion in 1996–97, largely owing to the decline of scratch card games. The situation was retrieved, admittedly, by introducing midweek lotteries but we cannot keep introducing more games and raising prizes to higher levels to keep up the revenue without eating into the good cause share. In other words, sooner or later lottery resistance will start to set in—quite apart from fluctuations connected with the business cycle. That is the strongest argument for not making incomes, jobs and services permanently dependent on lottery revenues. What will happen to the programmes of teacher training, homework clubs, health centres and so on, if net income from the lottery declines? Will they be discontinued? Will the income come out of the other good causes? Or will the Government be forced to raise taxes? Perhaps the Minister will tell us more about that.
We shall also be seeking clarification on Clause 1 dealing with the setting up of an advisory panel to advise on tenders for the new contract, and the directions which it may be given by the Secretary of State. What is the advisory panel intended to advise on exactly? Is it a way of concealing the Government's hostility to private profit? We shall certainly be asking for its remit to be made more explicit. Labour has clearly signalled its hostility to excess profits, or even any profits at all. Is that still its intention? We believe that the tender process by which Camelot was selected is already the most sophisticated mechanism for eliminating excessive profits. The White Paper acknowledges that our lottery is the most efficient in the world, but still cannot resist the temptation to attack the profit motive, although Camelot's profits are little over 1 per cent. of its net revenues.
So eager are the Government to get their hands on lottery money that they could not wait for the passage of the Bill authorising it. So they started to set aside money for the new opportunities fund on 14th October 1997, even though they had no power to do so under the terms of the 1993 Act. How can the Minister justify that clear breach of legality, which is to be rectified by a retrospective clause in this Bill?
740
There are a number of other matters on which we feel concern and which we intend to pursue. We intend to move amendments to strengthen the arm's length principle for the new opportunities fund. We will be seeking to limit the power of the Secretary of State to vary the percentages of funds allocated to the various good causes to protect the share going to the arts, sports and heritage. We are doubtful about Clause 8, which allows the lottery distributing bodies to solicit contributions. We are suspicious of the requirement in Clause 11 for distributing bodies to produce strategic plans for distribution, which strikes us as an unwelcome intrusion into artistic decisions by the Secretary of State. We want more clarification of the relationship between NESTA and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
This is an unnecessary Bill designed to rob Peter to pay Paul and whose net effect is simply to strengthen the power of the Secretary of State under the guise of giving people what they want. We will mount a reasoned opposition in Committee and hope, by argument, to persuade the Government to improve the legislation and think again about the issues which we shall raise that stand in much need of further thought.
12.19 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords. I thank the Minister for his clear and precise summary of the objectives of the Bill. His department has been kind enough to circulate to us papers which to some extent amplify its proposals. I shall not follow the devastating and brilliant speech of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, because I would feel most inadequate in trying to do so. But I am supported by my noble friends Lord McNally and Lord Redesdale, who will take up a number of the points which the noble Lord raised.
I had thought in my naïvety that the Government had dropped their objection to an operator who operates at a profit. I found his revelation that that is not so, disturbing. I am a punter, if I may use that word—it is probably more accurate than player. I am one of those 3 million people who buy a lottery ticket every week. Curiously enough, doing my sums shortly before I came into the Chamber, I discovered that I am almost exactly the average. I speculate about £3 a week. My returns are rather good. They are not a profit but they reflect something which may be a warning to other noble Lords who may follow me down this path, particularly as at the inception of the lottery I took a strong view about the undesirability of scratch cards. I still do. At home, I became, as we parliamentarians are apt to become at home, rather pompous about it. So I found on my birthday in May 1995 that my wife had bought me a considerable number of scratch cards. I spent some time rather ashamedly scratching and found that I came out with a profit of £148. I may tell your Lordships that I thanked my wife but she has not repeated the gesture.
However, I still think that scratch cards are, by the very ease with which people can repeatedly buy them, an inducement to develop from punting, which is speculating or betting in modest amounts, to the dangerous levels of becoming a gambler, which is, if I may make the comparison, the difference between a

741
moderate social drinker and an alcoholic. However, just to complete my story, I would say that on an expenditure over roughly three years of between £450 and £465 I have had returns of £265. I am still showing a loss but I live in hope that in the next three years I may improve on that performance.
I shall confine my remarks to the operation of the Bill's proposals on the lottery and on the gaming aspects rather than on the distributions aspects. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, touched on them, but there are one or two aspects which require amplification and explanation. Why is it that the lottery operator needs an advisory panel? That is not made clear either in the Bill or in any of the accompanying literature. It is said by the Government—the Minister may be able to enlighten us further—that the panel will have expertise in business and other areas. But will it have expertise in the lottery market? From where will the assistance to the operator come?
The noble Lord said that this development has been welcomed by the director general. I wonder what there is about it that he welcomes. What will the panel be looking for? How will it be able to improve the selection procedures which so far have arrived at what seems to be almost a seamless performance. It is, after all, the performance of the current operator, Camelot, and the experiences that punters like myself have week after week, with very little to criticise, that has given rise to the enormous funds which have been available for the good causes and will be available for the additional cause which the Bill seeks to introduce.
The Bill proposes to give the regulator powers to impose financial penalties for licence breaches. There is no mention of ceilings on those penalties. What is the scope of the penalties? To what particular matters do they refer? Surely their scope should be limited to those breaches which are in the full control of the operator and where there is a significant risk or an actual risk of a loss to the good causes. Financial penalties, if they are indiscriminately and excessively applied, will have a significant effect on prizes and lead to lower sales. Lower sales means less money for the good causes. An additional financial risk would deter possible bidders to succeed Camelot or might even deter Camelot from wishing to apply for reappointment.
Prior to the Bill's publication, Camelot approached the Government and asked for the opportunity to correct licence breaches before penalties became applicable. The Bill does not address that. The regulator should have the ability to safeguard the interests of the good causes way and beyond the breaches of the licence operator. There are many wider threats; for example, illegal lotteries. Perhaps the answers to these problems will emerge through probing amendments during other stages of the Bill or perhaps the Minister will be able to assist us today.
In line with other utility operators, one would expect the lottery regulator to be bound by an appropriate performance standard for reasons of accountability and so on. That has not been addressed either in the Bill or in the notes which the noble Lord's department has circulated to us. The grounds for appeal against financial
742
penalties are quite limited. They are confined to errors on fact, procedural errors or errors of law. That does not compare with other regulators where there can be an appeal against a regulator who has been deemed to have gone beyond his powers. That is not dealt with in the notes which the Minister's department has circulated to US.
There are a great number of matters which need further amplification. The Bill is unclear. It substantially reduces the principle of arm's length from government except in the area which looks most promising and is the one on which initially I took the most pessimistic view—the NESTA concept. However, it seems to have been very well thought out so far. The principle is well laid out. The Government's ability to make sure that the foundation receives constant funding, depending on its performance, for the support of creativity in various fields is a good one. Perhaps the one thing that commends itself to us is that it keeps government at arm's length. I look forward to the noble Lord's reply.
12.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester: My Lords, when the National Lottery was launched some three years ago, I had the task of explaining the House of Bishops' position live, but down the line, from Leicester to Jimmy Young in London on his show on Radio 2. I explained that the bishops were not at all keen on the lottery because they believed that it would encourage more people to gamble and would be supported disproportionately by those who could least afford it. On the other hand, I explained that, if it were the Government's chosen vehicle for financially supporting the national heritage, we in the Church had a large proportion of that heritage in our cathedrals and churches and would understand if local church trustees felt that they needed to make applications to lottery funds in order to maintain their heritage.
I paused for breath and heard an avuncular voice coming back to me down the line, "Let me see if I've got this right, Bishop. What you're saying is, `The lottery's wrong, but it's all right." Nothing much has changed in three years. It has to be said that most people have decided that the lottery is all right. It is immensely popular; indeed, the Minister told us that about 90 per cent. of the households in this country have participated in it. If that is so, it must be that virtually only the members of the House of Bishops have abstained. It must also be acknowledged that the lottery has benefited a large number of individuals, communities and good causes. Indeed, it is expected that the total raised by the lottery for those good causes in the seven year period of the first licence could be as much as £10 billion.
When it was established to provide funds for the five good causes, the single method of fund raising was initially the weekly draw. The draw was thought to be such a mild form of gambling that it was proper to set the age for participation at 16. Subsequently, however, two draws a week were provided and a rather more compulsive form of gambling—the instant game—was created. Sales of instant scratch cards have,

743
I understand, declined in recent months and the initial surge of support for the second weekly draw has levelled off.
It has to be said that, between them, the Churches hold a wide range of views on the lottery. Many church communities and Christian individuals believe that for a government to encourage gambling is simply wrong, and consequently the lottery should not have been established and should even now be abandoned. Others see the lottery as a tax on the poor, who perhaps naïvely see a lottery win as the only way of escape from a life where they feel shut out from the general prosperity of society. Then there is the quite widespread revulsion in some Church circles regarding the size of the jackpot, together with the belief that necessary services should be resourced from taxation rather than through the lottery.
A consensus on the lottery was reached in a statement produced by the Church Representatives Meeting of the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland in November 1995. That has formed the basis for a subsequent submission and meetings with the Secretary of State responsible for national heritage and the director general of Oflot. Those meetings have been very positive. However, two areas of concern remain regarding gambling and the distribution of lottery proceeds.
The Bill before us makes no reference to the question of gambling, yet it seems to me to be important to echo the disquiet expressed in the Labour Party's 1996 document on the National Lottery, over instant games and the problem of young people and gambling. Oflot has produced some excellent research which suggests a connection between a minority of young people who are already heavy users of fruit machines and who then become excessive players of instant games. The Government clearly recognise some of those dangers, particularly when instant gambling and alcohol are brought into close proximity. Indeed, one of the rapid draw games played in pubs, although supporting some very good causes, has prompted such concern that, I understand, a government Bill is expected to restrict its scope. However, the fact is that the whole of gambling law is in a state of some confusion. It seems to us that the Government should initiate a review of the whole field of gambling regulation with the intention of producing legislation at the earliest possible date.
I wish briefly to refer to the question of the distribution of lottery proceeds in the new Bill, and particularly the changes it contains. The Bill shows commendable enthusiasm for a fairer and more creative pattern of distribution to good causes. The commitment to partnership as regards public voluntary associations, local and national government is very welcome. Also welcome are the proposals for the national endowment for science, technology and the arts. As a research scientist in a previous incarnation, that is a cause very close to my own heart.
However, we share the reservations of those who are anxious concerning some of the proposals for the "new good cause" which aims to channel spending into health, education and the environment. The Minister echoed the
744
contents of the White Paper and told us, for example, that the education programme will provide training and support for the nation's half a million serving teachers. Obviously such training and support are of absolute central importance if we are to see the highest possible standards in our schools. But despite the assurances it seems hard to resist the conclusion that this is a comprehensive scheme which really ought to form part of the core activity of the school system. Surely the offering of such funds through the lottery will virtually compel school governors to apply for lottery funds, and particularly in Church schools this might well give some of them an uneasy conscience.
It seems to me that the Bill creates a new situation. Up until now, the great bulk of applications for lottery funds have been essentially from the voluntary sector or for activities generally seen as desirable enhancements of amenity. Under the Bill's provisions many more applications can be expected from statutory providers. Such providers might well be torn between their commitment to service provision and their reluctance to apply for lottery funds.
As your Lordships are well aware, a number of churches have direct responsibility for such institutions. The Secretary of State has shown himself sensitive to these difficulties and discussions are proceeding chiefly with the Department for Education and Employment to see how they might be eased. The causes are undoubtedly good and the proposals might give your Lordships no anxiety, but I believe that it is important to recognise that there is a conflict for some conscientious people between their seeming public duty to apply for lottery funds and their personal wish not to do so.
In conclusion, we would like to suggest that the Minister considers three policy guidelines. First, there should be a clear acknowledgement of the Government's intention to maintain the privileged position of the lottery in the gambling market place. The lottery was set up to aid good causes, not to expand the gambling industry. Secondly, the question of the conscientious objections which some have to the use of lottery funds needs to be seriously addressed with reference to the new opportunities fund. Thirdly, a comprehensive review of the regulation of the gambling industry needs seriously to be considered. The lottery still makes us uncomfortable but it would be a little more all right if these steps were taken.
12.40 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will pardon the fact that my voice is about to disappear. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, declared his interest as a punter. I declare an interest, not as a punter or indeed as a "scratcher", as I am one of that large body of people who thinks that the lottery is probably rotting the national moral fibre. However, in the spirit of the previous speech I should declare my interest as a major recipient of lottery funding—over £2.5 million—which is rather better than the profit level of some £145 from the scratch cards of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. Perhaps he would be advised to direct himself in future to the other end of the lottery process.

745
I broadly welcome the contents of the Bill and think that it is a good start in developing a more focused and effective way of spending the people's money. I use the word "people's" advisedly because it is money donated by a wide range of people in this country who are not necessarily of my non-punting persuasion. What is particularly of value is the greater direction on the part of government in the proposals for the new opportunities fund. I note the assurances of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey about arm's length procedures. However, I do not think that we should blush too much about the additionality debate. Additionality should certainly mean that lottery funding is additional to existing public funds, but we must be realistic about the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment. At a time of rising demands for public expenditure, when highly important first order priorities for this country are unable to be funded, such as health, education, the environment and—dare I say it?—lone parents and the disabled, and when hard choices are being made, I find it worrying to see only second order priorities by definition being able to be funded by the lottery.
I would not go so far as last night's Evening Standard, which mentioned fountains and follies, because many of the initiatives being funded by the lottery are important. However, we risk finding ourselves trapped in being able to fund only second order priorities if we treat the additionality provision too strictly. Lottery money is too extensive to be squandered on anything other than the most important "first order" priorities. I very much welcome the Government's direction as regards the new opportunities fund.
How do we ensure that the highest priorities are also tackled by the other lottery distributors? I welcome the provisions in the Bill for strategies to be drawn up by each of the distributors. These need to be strategies that will focus on the priorities that will be delivered locally through individual projects and grants. That increased focus is even more vital in view of the reduction in the percentage of lottery proceeds available for the other distributors. I recognise that their original aspirations are not being disappointed but their most recent ones are being somewhat restrained.
The strategies of each of the distributors are important for another reason. If this is genuinely to be the people's lottery—as I think it should be—we must recognise that the quality of the environment is vital to the quality of people's lives. The Government's manifesto laid down a commitment that sustainable development would be put at the heart of all policies. Indeed, several of the lottery distributors have a key role to play in achieving sustainable development and in protecting the environment. Several more distributors could have an adverse effect on the environment, if they are not careful, in the way that they distribute funds. The commitment that the environment will be at the heart of policy needs to be reflected also in the way that the lottery is operated. All distributors should be required to take account of sustainable development in the drawing up of their strategies for distribution, and to build adequate measures into those strategies to ensure environmental appraisal of the bids.
746
I give an example of that in terms of the new opportunities fund. We welcome the fact that an environmental strand will form part of the three main strands that were initially set up by order. Alas, that will take some time to come to fruition—some two to three years—and we must be patient. However, if that process could be accelerated, that would be welcome. The strands will be selected by government after wide consultation. That consultation is absolutely vital, but we must address high priorities and not optional extras. No amount of planting bluebells by cycle tracks will address the major environmental challenges that we face on a local basis right across the country. I refer to challenges such as climate change, air pollution and the alarming decline in the biodiversity of ecosystems that people in this country depend on.
I have another concern which I do not believe is directly addressed by the Bill but on which some of the provisions of the Bill will impact. I believe that an element of frustration with the lottery is arising in many quarters. There are now too many applications chasing not enough grants. The ratio of applications to grants is alarming in some cases. The National Lottery Charities Board has five applications for every one successful grant. At the moment the heritage lottery fund can fund only one out of every 10 applications. I suspect that that frustration will increase as further kinds of applications are made. It is important that in connection with the strategies and the powers in regard to projects that are laid out in the Bill, potential applicants should be more clearly signposted towards those projects that are most likely to be successful, because for every one successful candidate at present we are in danger of having five or 10 unsuccessful candidates who will feel rather disgruntled, let down and disengaged.
I commend the provisions of the Bill. I believe that this vital slab of the people's money is too important to be spent other than in a targeted and focused fashion.
12.47 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, although I do not welcome this Bill, I welcome the opportunity afforded to us by this debate today to make several points as to why I do not welcome it. First, I believe that the timing of the Bill is inappropriate. I shall elaborate further on that. I also have serious misgivings about some of the content.
Is it possible for the Minister to confirm some of the financial implications of the Bill which seem to me somewhat woolly? I take it that those details can be elaborated upon during the Committee stage. The thought that hit me between the eyes when looking at the Bill was, what has Her Majesty's Treasury actually done with the £4.5 billion of what I can only call a windfall resulting from the introduction of the National Lottery in November 1994?
As regards the timing of the Bill, the lottery has been running for just over three years. There seems to be a raft of different timescales operating within government for review periods. Is three years the correct time to pull up the roots of the lottery Act, shake them about and prune the plant, graft onto the plant and replant in

747
shifting sandy soil, particularly as—to continue the metaphor—the plant has been thriving, has grown way ahead of initial expectations and is universally admired in the international field of lotteries? In effect this is the best lottery in the world. The facts bear repetition of the point made by my noble friend Lord Skidelsky; namely, it is the world's most efficient lottery in terms of percentage of sales to good causes and in terms of percentage of duty to government. Why do we have to mess about with it now?
Camelot was given a five year contract to run the lottery. It has been extraordinarily successful. Surely the time to review it is in the six months or so period before the contract expires. But I am not naïve; and I am certainly not naïve enough to believe that the purpose of the Bill is to analyse whether or not Camelot has been successful. The purpose of the Bill, it appears to me, is to change fundamentally several principles of the National Lottery, not because it has been unsatisfactory but because the Government see a wonderful opportunity to milk the lottery funds for ongoing public expenditure. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, reinforced that view by listing all the basic national expenditure categories which will be funded by the lottery. I seriously believe that this is a betrayal of the basis on which this House debated the lottery in the past. If I may say as an aside, it was a debate which was not memorable for the support of the then Opposition to the concept of the lottery.
Lord Howell: My Lords, that is absolute nonsense. Will the noble Baroness give way?
Baroness O'Cathain: I do.
Lord Howell: My Lords, I took a prominent part in that debate, as did the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, from our Front Bench, totally supporting the concept of the lottery.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I agree that the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Donoughue, did so. But there were many misgivings about the lottery. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, will agree with me, that at that time it was stated time and again that the moneys raised by the lotter were not for general public expenditure but for specific good causes—not least football, and those causes about which the noble Lord so ably demonstrated, and on which he received the support of the House.
My second misgiving relates to the very structure of the Bill. The first four clauses have nothing to do with the revenues accruing to the five good causes which were established under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, but are a veiled criticism of the operations of Camelot. The inference is there. On the basis that one puts the best and most important goods up front when selling anything, the first four clauses lead one to infer that there is huge, deep-seated concern about the current operation of the company that has done so brilliantly. In this season of goodwill I should not even consider that the demons envy and greed are alive and well—but I am not strong enough to resist that temptation.
748
The measures proposed in the four clauses leave one with a deep suspicion that all is not well with the lottery operator. I cannot believe that that is so. It has done an absolutely splendid job in organisation and administration terms. Has anyone a list of customer complaints? Are there screaming headlines to the effect that they are inefficient, or worse? If so, I plead ignorance of them.
Camelot (I have to say that I have absolutely nothing to do with Camelot; I have not even received a briefing from it) strikes me as being a shining example of how to do a thoroughly good, efficient job—so good in fact that everyone takes it for granted that no mistakes will be made. But in typical British fashion we do not continue to compliment Camelot, taking such efficiency for granted, despite the fact that it is pretty rare in most areas of British business and commerce to have such an acceptance of the efficiency of an organisation. If I were employed by Camelot, I should be somewhat dismayed and demotivated by the Bill, but doubtless it has made its views known.
My third misgiving relates to the introduction of the new good cause of health, education and the environment. Naturally, I want all those areas to be the subject of good funding. But the National Lottery was not set up to take the place of public expenditure from national revenue. Lest I be considered to be anti any increase in funding to those three areas, let me briefly point out why I feel the way I do.
No recognition is taken of the fact that the Exchequer has had a total of £4.5 billion since November 1994. It is £4.5 billion that could never have been foreseen, say, eight to 10 years ago. How has that been spent? Has any audit been done of the distribution of this windfall? The sums going directly to the Treasury each week amount to some £26 million. According to my mathematics, in a full year that amounts to £1.35 billion. If the annual total of the windfall from the lottery were allocated to health, education and the environment, even on an equal basis to each of the three, there would be an annual increase of £450 million in the funding. Surely that is the fair way to do it. But, no, I believe that the existing five good causes are now faced with a diminution in their funding from the National Lottery despite the assurance of the Minister. Other speakers will describe, I am sure, the impact that this could or would have if the Bill goes through unamended in that respect. All I can say is that anybody employed in the voluntary sector will have life made exceedingly difficult when the known source of funding is reduced. Politicians may not have the experience of trying to plan and budget within known revenue limits, but the real world does, and it is not easy.
I turn to my fourth misgiving. The establishment of the new opportunities fund fills me with foreboding. It is yet another army, small I admit but an army nonetheless, of bureaucrats, of people pushing paper around supported by sophisticated IT back-up, 10 per cent. of which will probably be used, mulling over applications and employing consultants to help them. In this thorough review of the lottery, I should like to know how many consultants' jobs does the Minister envisage will be created by the Bill? Certainly the National Lottery etc.

749
Act 1993 has spawned a whole new industry of consultants. I have been involved in the arts sector. In the past three years, in three separate areas of small scale activity in the arts world compared with the major organisations such as the Royal Opera House, I have been amazed by the number of consultants who have latched on to this. It is one of the greatest growth industries and market opportunities of the 1990s. The question is always, "Are you thinking of putting in an application for lottery funding? We can help you. In fact without us you will not succeed". I do not think that people realise the ramifications of what has happened. It is a direct follow-on to the Bill that the Conservative Party introduced in 1993. But that is the reality.
My fifth misgiving is the establishment of NESTA. I am not against putting more money into this worthy cause in terms of uprating our skills in the areas of education and science. But here is yet another acronym, another body. We can no longer call such bodies quangos. They are now non-departmental public bodies. Christmas jollity went to my head when I decided to refer to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary in the early hours of this morning to look up the word "body". The first definition was a corpse; and the second was a chemise. I do not know whether we shall have a corpse, or a chemise which will cover us up, keep us warm but will really be another body. Despite the fact that the Minister made a correct, impassioned plea for the objectives of NESTA, I do not think that its survival should be reliant upon the whim of the people to choose six numbers twice a week or to buy a few scratch cards. That is surely an area where there should be proper public funding which is not reliant on the lottery.
My sixth misgiving concerns the emphasis placed on strategic planning. This may come as a surprise to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. He knows that I have been a strategic planner for most of my career. However, I know the perception of economists and strategic planners. It is not universally good. I fear that we shall be spawning yet another industry of strategic planners. I can already envisage the new consultancy organisations which will be founded specifically to help lottery applicants produce strategic plans.
My seventh misgiving relates to Part III of the Bill. I do not believe that the forecasts of additional expenditure relating to administration costs are realistic. Every time a new administration person is appointed, the on-costs in terms of overheads, IT support, and so on, are seriously underestimated. I do not think that anyone yet has the proper answer. I fear that that might be the case here.
I did not give the Minister notice of my concerns. In a Second Reading debate I should not expect specific answers. However, it would be interesting to have figures for the costs of administration between the handing over of the moneys from Camelot to the receipt of those moneys by organisations, as it were, "at the coal face". I should like to know what the administration "muddle" in the middle is. Today, the Minister announced yet another NDPB—yet more costs to be taken out of the distributive pot.
750
I am sad that I am taking issue with almost all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for whom I have the greatest respect; but I honestly believe that the so-called improvements and reforms are untimely and that they fly in the face of the basic principles on which the 1993 Act was based.
1 p.m.
Lord Rothschild: My Lords, nobody likes money to be taken away from them; but the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the Heritage Lottery Fund—I should declare my interest as chairman until 31st March next year—are mindful of the commitment in the government's general election manifesto to create a sixth good cause. It is right that that pledge should now be honoured.
Its creation, however, will reduce the Heritage Lottery Fund's share of lottery proceeds at a time when we are already being asked to do more with less. In the short life of the national lottery it is not an exaggeration to say that the five good causes have been able to make a real and lasting impact on life in this country. The future prospects for sport, the arts and heritage have been transformed.
Let us consider just two areas which the Heritage Lottery Fund has helped. Our urban parks programme, to which we have committed more than £80 million, has received almost universal praise, and led the Secretary of State for culture, media and sport to note:
"these are precisely the sort of grants that do the National Lottery proud, providing real benefits to millions of ordinary people".
The major museum, archive and library programme could have an impact as far-reaching as the Act of 1845 which helped to create so many of our remarkable museums.
And in other areas the Conservation Area Partnership scheme for towns and the Joint Places of Worship scheme for churches, both set up in association with English Heritage, and the Local Heritage Initiative, launched last month in association with the Countryside Commission, will ensure a wide distribution of funds across the country for crucial and popular areas of heritage which have a sad history of under-funding. In all, I am proud to say that in less than three years the fund has awarded more than £800 million to 1,200 projects across the United Kingdom.
Yes, we have received significant resources; but the scale of that achievement must be put in the context of government expenditure generally. The Heritage Lottery Fund's annual income, following the introduction of a sixth good cause, is likely to run at about £250 million per annum. That is the amount it costs to run the hospitals in the London Borough of Hammersmith. Approximately £250 million would run the bureaucracy of government for about seven hours. The annual budget of the Department of Health, for example—an area set to benefit from the introduction of the sixth good cause—runs at £34.9 billion, several hundred times greater than our current resources.
I hope, therefore, that we can be assured that there will be no more squeezing of funds, and that we can look forward to the present ratios being maintained

751
between now and the expiry of the Camelot licence—and indeed, we should very much welcome confirmation that there will be life thereafter.
There is one particular clause in the Bill, however, which causes me concern. I should like the Minister to reassure me in respect of Clause 17(2), which gives power to the Secretary of State to lay an order accumulating the National Lottery Distribution Fund solely for the benefit of NESTA, even though those moneys had been allocated to the existing good causes. That would come into effect one year after the Bill becomes law.
That could mean in our case, albeit after consultation and a resolution moved in both Houses, that moneys not drawn down by the Heritage Lottery Fund could be forfeited after June 1999. The impact on our ability to plan ahead with capital projects, many of which are carried out over a period of many years, could be very serious indeed. If we are no longer sure of being able to draw upon this fund in respect of the share designated to us, we may not be able to fulfil commitments that we have budgeted for and approved. That could create difficulties for the Heritage Lottery Fund in managing future cashflow and, equally importantly, add to the uncertainty for grant recipients.
We welcome many aspects of the Bill, including the proposal that the lottery distributors should seek to take a more strategic approach. Indeed, as some noble Lords may know, by selecting themes such as urban parks and museums, we were in effect deploying funds in that manner well before the publication of the Bill. We welcome, too, the power to delegate decision-making, which I hope will make life easier for future applicants.
There are provisions in the Bill to give powers to the distributors to delegate and enter into joint schemes so as to improve the distribution of small grants. In response to that, perhaps I may draw the attention of the House to our own Local Heritage Initiative, which was launched last month in association with the Countryside Commission. It will seek to award hundreds of small grants to local rural and town communities across England, just as the Bill has proposed. The fund is also taking an active role in a joint distributor, small grant initiative which is to be piloted in Scotland next year.
The Bill requires each lottery distributor to prepare a "strategic plan" if the Secretary of State instructs it to do so. After consultation with the Secretary of State, the distributor will make such modifications to its plan as it considers necessary or expedient. The balance of power between the Government and the distributor bodies and their trustees has been, and always will be, a delicate one. But the independence of trustees is their lifeblood. Their point is to be able to offer some alternative to the state's politically oriented conception of public need. Therefore, if the distributor bodies are too restricted in exercising their own independent judgment and vision, if the arm's length principle is not rigorously upheld, then organisations such as the Heritage Lottery Fund will become little more than adjuncts of a state department.
The bold experiment of giving lottery proceeds to five, and now six, good causes is, so far as I know, unique to this country. I genuinely believe that a noble
752
beginning has been made, and that a renaissance is under way which is helping to broaden and improve our lives. My distinguished predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, who is sitting behind me, began his first National Heritage Memorial Fund annual report in 1980-81 by quoting Sir Francis Drake, who, in 1587, said:
"There must be a beginning to any great matter, but the continuing unto the end until it be thoroughly finished yields the true glory".
This great matter of the heritage will never be finished, but we look forward to a voyage of mercy with many more ports of call. I hope that under this new Bill we shall be allowed to continue on our voyage, with no further incursions and with our independence maintained.
1.9 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that in any consideration of lotteries in this country there are two things we must bear in mind. The first is that ever since the first lottery in this country in 1569 to raise funds for the Cinque Ports—I do not wish to give the Government an idea for an additional new cause—through the 1826 last British state lottery to today. we as a nation have been ambivalent.
Secondly, in this country there is a very rigid and unbending attitude to public expenditure. The Treasury is a Cerberus which guards the nation's money with a series of arcane, Byzantine and sometimes, it seems to me, completely nonsensical rules.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, since November 1994 the success of the lottery has been far beyond the greatest expectations of those who thought about it at that time. We must not forget, to re-coin a phrase, that "It's Camelot wot done it". We are now looking at the problems of success, not failure, something for which we should all be grateful. I believe that it is right and proper that where we have success of this kind we should look at it carefully. I also understand that a new government would want to put their own imprimatur on the project. I entirely sympathise with that, and were I in the Government's shoes I would try to do the same.
From the time when I was in the ministerial chair of the Department of National Heritage, I could see the Opposition's spin doctors operating a populist attack on the lottery through the media. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, was absolutely right in his brave decision to acquire the Churchill papers. The criticism wrongly levelled at it was triggered by a distaste in some quarters for the identity of the vendor. But if you want to buy something, you must buy it from the person who owns it.
There was criticism of money from the good causes, the charity distribution groups, to certain minority groups such as gays, lesbians, prostitutes. But those people are the kind whom charities exist to serve. To put it another way, if it was good enough and respectable enough for Mr. Gladstone, it is good enough for me.
There was criticism of spending money on opera. We in this country want a world class arts scene and it is integral that if we have a world class arts scene we have

753
world class opera. It is not my favourite art form, but if that is our aspiration then that is what we should set our stall out to do.
What concerns me about the proposals in the Bill is that it seems that populism has been a prime driver of change and I do not believe that that is in anyone's long-term interests.
As I mentioned, the lottery has lived in the shadow of the Treasury. As we know, because we live in a world of non-hypothecated expenditure, the concept of additionality has been developed. As my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, it has a kind of superficial intellectual coherence. But I believe it is at bottom bogus because the parameters of public expenditure are themselves set by the lottery or the European Regional Development Fund or whatever it happens to be.
It is clear that governments are necessary and they must raise taxes in order to spend money. But it is interesting that all across the political spectrum there is a questioning of the indiscriminate use of taxation for all kinds of non-specific public purposes, each of which in its own way has merit. In that context, it is interesting that at least in one part of the current public expenditure scene there is a recognition of a qualitative distinction between categories of expenditure. I refer to the distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure in the European Community budget. I believe that there may be a good case for looking at what the Government do and when the Government disburse money to see whether some things can be done in different ways which might be better. In a sense it is an evolution of the idea behind privatisation.
In the Bill there is an interesting and helpful lead. I refer to NESTA. While I do not know all the details, it seems to provide an interesting and worthwhile idea—the creation of a virtual Oxbridge college with very real assets. Pluralism is an essential characteristic of a democratic and free society and I am very much a supporter of diverse sources of power, money and patronage. The best way of ensuring institutions and with them pluralism is to endow institutions. Keep them at arm's length. After all, the psalmist was right when he said, "Put not your trust in princes", for these days for "princes" read "the Treasury". We all know about the dissolution of the monasteries, and, none better than the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, about the shameful behaviour of the Treasury in respect of the National Land Fund. But we can have institutions doing good with independent resources and I believe it is in the public interest.
It would have been more imaginative, bolder and braver of the Government at least to have considered seriously the possibility of using some or all of the lottery itself as an endowment for some or all of the heritage, arts and sports sectors, thereby providing for them both their capital and their income needs and, to some extent, decoupling them from the wider public expenditure programme.
No one is a greater supporter than I of the Government wholeheartedly being behind these sectors and for public money being available for them. But it is
754
interesting to speculate on whether direct money from taxation is best for that. If we did something in that way, we would be releasing other money which the conventional public sector would have and some of the other good causes which are doing things that I and a number of other noble Lords believe should be done properly by government themselves to enable them to expand their terms of reference.
I recall that when we were in power we were not quite the flavour of the month with the number of sectors we served in the Department of National Heritage. I now suspect that those very same people feel that they have fallen out of the proverbial frying pan into the metaphorical fire. I would not be surprised if there was not considerable support for the idea of making those sectors further from government itself.
However, clearly that will not happen and anyway the example I used has been very much illustrative and not worked through in detail. What we shall see happen is, in general terms, what is contained within the Bill. When I read it I recall one of the first remarks my then Secretary of State, Virginia Bottomley, made to me about the lottery. She said: "It's only a matter of time before it is all used for nurses' pay." That is what the Treasury wants. As we speak now, the Treasury is fingering this money. I know it and I sense that others too feel it happening. It is not the people's lottery: it is the Treasury's lottery. What worries and saddens me is that I feel that the Government have been seduced by an unholy alliance of the Treasury and its own spin doctors whose song they commissioned in opposition, to which they find they must listen now that they are in government.
1.17 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, the other day I read in that remarkable publication which comes to us free every week, the House Magazine, that a Member of Parliament said that the most difficult audience he had ever had to face was sixth formers. A sixth former asked him: "Why do we spend so much money on the arts when someone's life could be saved if we gave that money to the National Health Service?"
There is no answer to that question except to say that there is no limit to what the NHS could spend and absorb in prolonging life, but it is the arts, among other things, which make life worth living. This civilised country, in ancient, medieval and modern times, has always, in one way or another, supported the arts. When the right reverend Prelate was speaking, there came to my mind the enormous proportion of GNP that was spent in medieval times on building cathedrals and churches. Of the prayers and praise which were offered up in those churches nothing remains: but the churches remain, and they are the glory of our civilised lives these days.
The Bill will diminish the amount spent on the arts by the Arts Council from 20 per cent. to 16.6 per cent. The £1 billion for the new opportunities fund will diminish by £60 million the amount available for charity. In its place we shall have money spent on health, the environment and education. I am bound to

755
say that I share the suspicions of those who have said: "This is but the first step, and we shall find more and more money milked from the lottery to provide money which should come from taxation". I shall come back to that in a moment.
What do we mean by "the arts"? In the 1950s—a long time ago—I was asked to join a committee set up by the newly founded Gulbenkian Foundation, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The committee's function was to say what the foundation should spend its money on. Though it was obviously necessary for the Portuguese part of the foundation to spend a great deal of money on social welfare, in Britain we said that we had an admirable government increasing spending on social security and we therefore felt that the money should go on something on which we did not spend much: the arts.
Time passed and a new secretary of the committee of the Gulbenkian Foundation came into office. He changed the policy. He was not against spending on the arts, but he defined the arts in a very different way. He felt that the arts meant street theatre, pop groups, happenings and other trendy manifestations. Today the Gulbenkian Foundation spends its money in a very different way.
One could argue that the original Gulbenkian Foundation's functions were not wide enough. But it did do something. After the Second World War one could argue that Britain was still a philistine country. It is not so today. It has a vast interest in visual and performing arts, in music especially, in the theatre and of course in the cinema, which has been hard hit by the great success of television. That interest has been revived by what the lottery has been able to do.
Nevertheless, the suspicion remains that when we talk about money for the arts it is for esoteric elitist groups of people. Nobody reads what various public organisations set out in the brochures which thud through one's letter box day by day. Let me repeat, before the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, what the Arts Council says it spends its money on:
"48% of capital grants have gone to community or amateur groups—831 grants worth £137.53 million
Arts for Everyone Express was aimed at community and amateur groups, providing over 5,300 grants
57% of all ACE Lottery grants have gone to registered charities, 22% of the total number of grants given".
There follows the heading,
"Lottery money is not just for large projects
70% of capital grants are for less than £100,000 … The 5,300 Arts for Everyone Express grants were for less than £5,000".
It goes on to say what a wide range of people benefit from the Arts Council lottery money. There is wide support for those Arts Council lottery projects. I shall not quote further from the publication but I commend it to your Lordships because it indicates how public bodies are spending lottery money on the people. It is a fraud to say that nothing has been done for the people up to this date.
That is one of the points I wanted to put forward. Another point concerns the problem of the Royal Opera House. The Opera House is denounced as an élitist
756
institution. Let me add that I am not in any way defending the way in which that great concern has been managed in the past. There have been grave deficiencies, to which the chairman of the Arts Council referred and on which he advised the board. I well remember when I was a director of the board long ago, I too felt that there was insufficient financial control of productions. But one's words fell on stony ground and the resultant malaise of the present time came about.
The report by the Select Committee in another place—I do not know who drafted it—seemed to he drafted by somebody in whom malice and self-advertisement struggled for mastery. The report was deficient in one very important respect. It noted that certain European cities Berlin, Paris, Munich, Vienna and Milan—also ran international opera houses on the staggione system in which great artists perform and sing, and great conductors too.
The Royal Opera House received one quarter of what those opera houses received. The Arts Council said that it was seriously underfunded. I do not know whether it was by chance, but the government of the time invited the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, to become chairman of the trustees—no doubt because he and his family had given fantastic sums of money to build the great Sainsbury extension to the National Gallery under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. However, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is no fool. No doubt the Government expected him to make some other staggering donation to the Royal Opera House. I take it that when the Government failed to make it possible for the Arts Council to raise the grant adequately he resigned.
That is the point. We cannot have a great opera house on the staggione system unless we fund it on level terms with other great opera houses in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was quoted in the report by the Select Committee as saying,
"Such comparisons provide a more interesting insight into the differing funding cultures of the respective countries than. necessarily, a guide to the relative cost-effectiveness of the individual organisation concerned".
So far as I can detect a meaning in that sentence, it is that if other countries preferred to have expensive opera houses and we do not, then we should not have one. That is a reasonable inference to draw from what has happened. We cannot run an opera house unless we are prepared to fund it.
Faced with that dilemma and urged on by the government of the time the Royal Opera House went out to obtain private donations, private funding. It was immensely successful in so doing. But the more successful it was, the greater its difficulties. It was accepted that now there was no need to increase its grant and so it was impaled on the horns of a dilemma: the more it raised from private sources, the less likely it was to receive support from the government of the day. We must seriously consider whether private donations should not be ring-fenced.
However, there is one way in which something could be done to help the Royal Opera House. I refer to an interesting and curious table relating to the money which the lottery has distributed to the various funds. All the

757
funds are set out—the Arts Council, the Charities Board, the National Heritage Memorial Fund, the Millennium Commission, the Sports Council, and so on. The table sets out the total amounts they have been given and the total amount they have drawn. That amount is very much less than what they have been given. There are good reasons for that. If you are told that you can have a grant from the lottery but you have to match it at a particular level, it takes time to raise that money, and so balances in this account rise and rise, as people struggle to find the matching grants. Even when you have your matching grants, there is some time before you can begin to build or do whatever it is you are getting a grant for. So we have a figure, as it were, of money allocated but not spent, which has risen to £3.3 billion. I realise that that money has been allocated and it certainly should not be taken away. But what has happened to the interest? Has the interest been taken by the Treasury? Where has the interest gone? One could do a great deal with that interest to help, for example, the Royal Opera House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me so directly and with such force that I cannot resist answering now his question on where the interest will go. When the Secretary of State criticised the Camelot directors for their bonuses, one of the results of that criticism was an assurance from Camelot that the interest will go to the good causes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no other way of giving the money except on the same terms as the other money going to the good causes.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. But I wonder whether the interest will be given on the same terms. Is there a chance to use revenue for recurrent purposes?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there is no other way of giving the money except on the same terms as the other money going to the good causes.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I suggest that this will be an admirable opportunity to add an amendment to the Bill.
The new opportunities fund is an interesting idea in that it is time-funded and has an exit strategy. That is necessary, and it is something which the Arts Council should surely often follow. The moral is that you cannot always have funds which go on and on, difficult though that is for many small ventures which in the end find that they cannot continue without a permanent subvention.
I have one question on NESTA. Will the universities benefit from this? The universities have a great opportunity to put in many bids. I wanted to say something on Clause 17. However, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, shot my fox on that. I shall not repeat his criticism. So I conclude with those words.
1.34 p.m.
Lord Howell: My Lords, whatever the merits of the Bill, no one can deny that we are having a fascinating debate today. Although I have not agreed with every point, I do not think a single point has been made which does not merit debate. Therefore, I start by saying that
758
we are deficient in not insisting on having an annual debate on the merits of the lottery. I hope that we shall. Sharing, as I do, fears about Treasury greed, the only way to deal with that is by calling people to account on the Floor of the House. We need more such debates. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will help us to get them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in which capacity? I speak for the Treasury as well.
Lord Howell: My Lords, my noble friend has so many hats that I never know which one he is wearing at any time. I do not mind, provided he enables us to have the debates we want.
I intend to speak mainly from my experience in sport and to make some criticisms and suggestions. I want also fully to support the purposes of the Bill and to try to illustrate why it is necessary to develop strategies and priorities. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, is not in his place. I thought that his speech was a little jaundiced. He did not seem to understand the need for strategies, priorities and direction in sport. I shall return to this theme in a moment, but perhaps I may say in passing that, of all the grants given to sport in schools, only 1.6 per cent. have been in urban areas and areas of priority. We should have a social purpose about the giving of grants. There is something wrong there. We can explore this point more fully in the Grand Committee to which the Bill is to be committed. We are not getting our priorities right. Welcoming, as I do, grants being given to all kinds of organisations, it is vital, bearing in mind the problems in urban areas and other areas of deprivation, to use these opportunities to tackle those problems and to encourage youngsters to participate in sport and the arts in order to live a full life. I congratulate the Government on producing the Bill.
There is a need for a strategy to direct these funds to the areas of highest priority. Clause 8 enables the Sports Council and other authorities to solicit bids. That is very welcome indeed. One of the problems at the moment with many of the bids is the difficulty of raising a share of the money to attract success. That is a serious problem. The Government are being imaginative in trying to bring urgency to the distribution of these lottery funds.
On the subject of developing a strategy, perhaps I may welcome the decision this week of the Sports Council and the Government to nominate Sheffield as the headquarters of the Academy for Sport or Institute for Sport. I led the Birmingham bid and we are disappointed that we did not get on the short list. However, Sheffield and Birmingham have one thing in common. They are the two cities that have spent their own money—not government money—on developing significant sporting facilities for this country. Sheffield did it for the World Student Games and Birmingham has done it with the National Indoor Arena and in other areas. I do not begrudge Sheffield a penny. It has earned the right to have the funds. I wish it well in becoming the headquarters of this new, imaginative centre. There are many questions that I would like to ask about the relationship between the headquarters and the regions

759
and the way in which this institute develops, but I shall not trespass on the kindness of the House at this moment to do so. Perhaps we may raise the questions at Committee with appropriate amendments.
Although I want the Government to approve the strategy and I certainly want the Sports Council to be responsible for ensuring that we have one, it cannot succeed if all the decision-making is taken at the centre. The whole point about strategy is that we should decentralise the detail of decision-making after ensuring that such detailed decisions are taken in accordance with an agreed national or regional strategy. That is a very important point.
I certainly agree that if Treasury bureaucracy treats lottery bids as an integral part of government expenditure, that would he disastrous. I hope to table an amendment in order to debate that in Committee. At the moment there is a sort of triple taxation in relation to the bids, which is totally unforgivable. I would like to see our enlightened Ministers—and I believe that they are enlightened—leading the battle. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will try to cut through the bureaucracy. The financial directions under which, for example, the Sports Council operates, need to be reviewed and relaxed. It cannot make any sense for the Treasury to control lottery bids as though they were central government funding. They are not. It is a scandal that the Treasury treats them in that way. All of us have an obligation to come together, wherever we sit in this House, to tackle the problem and to say to Ministers that we are not going to put up with it any longer.
VAT is paid on, for example, sports facilities. Disabled persons lose their disablement benefits if they receive a revenue grant for their sporting activities. Some of us in this House are very keen to promote sport for the disabled. Grants encourage the imposition of the uniform business rate. That is another way of soaking the lottery bids to enhance Treasury and local government finances. That cannot be right.
The great priority for sport—and it probably applies in other fields too, about which I know less—is to re-establish regional sports councils. That is one of the great arguments for enabling the Secretary of State to give some direction and to get decision-making away from the centre. We used to have regional councils for sport. I set them up when I was the Minister. They were a great success because they brought together not only the local authorities, but in particular the planning officers of those local authorities, those who were working on plans for sport and the governing bodies of sport. They generated plans.
The last government closed them down for very spurious reasons. In answer to a question to the then Minister I was told that they were being closed down because it was wrong for members of local authorities to take decisions which might affect other local authorities. That is not a principle that the Government apply to themselves. We have Ministers taking decisions on matters and not thinking that there is anything amiss about the situation. I am a great believer in local
760
government. About 90 per cent. of our local government is of outstanding integrity in this country. There is a tremendous amount of dedication.
It is easy to say that a regional sports council would be given power to make regional grants according to a regional strategy, but that any local authority or planning office involved in such a bid should withdraw, which is the normal procedure now. I therefore very much hope that my noble friend will take back to his colleagues the fact that we must establish regional sports councils as soon as we possibly can.
I certainly approve of the powers in the Bill for the Sports Council, the Arts Council and others, to solicit bids. There is a tremendous gap in provision. I have illustrated that already by reference to schools and sport. The only way to fill that gap is to encourage the Sports Council to carry out a survey and to say. "Look, we desperately need indoor facilities in this part of Liverpool, Birmingham or wherever, and we shall solicit bids that assist people to put in bids to meet the requirement". That should be a prime purpose of this Bill, and I hope that it will follow.
The regional fund distribution powers should he given to regional councils. I envisage that they would be allowed to spend to an agreed limit—perhaps £100,000 provided, as I said earlier, it is in accordance with a regional or national strategy, which the Sports Council or Arts Council has agreed. It makes good sense. It provides local involvement in decision-making.
Under the new opportunities fund I also welcome very much the Government's wish to encourage—although the noble Lord. Lord Skidelsky, is sceptical about it—after-school clubs, homework groups and fitness centres. If we are to provide facilities for sport and the arts, it makes sense that additional money should be added to whatever can be provided now. I would like to see homework clubs, for example, expanded so that in addition to the academic progress that it is hoped youngsters would make, we are helping, by providing facilities in schools, to join in sport and art events, bearing in mind the need for education to provide for the whole man or woman. It is a great step forward to have homework groups, after-school clubs and fitness centres, I would like to see us build on that by the provision of additional money.
I have two final points that I would like to make. I mentioned one of them at the start of my remarks. I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, would be back in the Chamber by now so that I could make the point in his presence. Out of a total of 2,827 awards 48 schools in urban priority areas benefited. We should think about that proportion. It is 1.6 per cent. of the total in urban priority areas. That shows, first, our failure to get many of the grants into areas where there is the greatest need and, secondly, it certainly supports the Government's desire to have a strategy on these issues. Facilities should be provided for the schools and for the community. My policy in the 1960s was to put money into schools so that facilities were built that could be used both for the school and the community.

761
The caretaker problem was always the greatest problem. It was necessary to ensure that the facilities received maximum use.
I hope that my noble friend will excuse me mentioning my final concern: the position of the United Kingdom or Great Britain in the light of devolution. I am not quite sure where we are going. We do not have a United Kingdom Minister for Sport and we do not have a Great Britain Minister for Sport, although in my time I had that authority and exercised it, sometimes with some difficulty. But most of our teams—excluding cricket, which plays as England and includes Welshmen, for which we can be grateful—going on to the international sporting stage, do so as Great Britain or the United Kingdom.
I ask that question because it must be faced and the point arises with regard to lottery funding. Will the new assemblies for Scotland and for Wales make their proper contribution to the creation of Great Britain's teams? That is a very important question. I am referring not only to a financial contribution, but also to an inspired contribution in terms of creating a cohesive British team. I have heard whispers about Scotland being represented at the Olympic Games. That would be an absolute nonsense. It would be a disaster of the highest order.
I mention this point now only because I think that it really needs to be tackled. I wanted to draw the matter to the attention of Government so that they will understand that some of us are watching them on this. The great strength of British teams has been their Britishness. It has been a great source of pleasure to many of us to support Britain. Those of us who believe in a great degree of devolution, as I do, want to ensure that pride at being British on the sports field is maintained as much in the future as it has been in the past.
1.51 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I was hoping to be able to welcome the Bill because it was obvious that lottery legislation would be needed at some point. However, I have deep reservations about this Bill. One thing for which I can thank the Government is that they managed to avoid putting on the face of the Bill a change of name to the "People's Lottery". I have great reservations whenever the word "people's" is placed in front of anything. At the moment it is taking on the aspect of a political slogan and I had been hoping that the lottery could somehow maintain its independence and not be seen as the plaything of one party or another.
I should like to focus on the mechanics of the Bill, and especially on additionality. I apologise for using that word because I know that it sends a shudder down the spine of my noble friend because he particularly dislikes it. I was hoping that we might be able to find another word, but as "additionality" is used so often, I suppose that we must all use it.
The problem is that the Bill goes a long way towards destroying the principle of additionality. We should not fool ourselves about one of the major reasons for the
762
setting up of the lottery in the first place. Although it was set up to fund the arts, one reason why the Government of the day were so keen to establish a lottery was that, apart from the prize money, the biggest beneficiary is the Treasury, which gets 12p out of every £1. We on these Benches opposed that money going to the Treasury in the first place. Indeed, we tabled amendments to say that that should not happen. Although I support many of the underlying principles of the new good cause, I find it problematic that it may be seen as an extra form of taxation, amounting to an extra 4p on every lottery ticket.
That is a problem because establishing the sixth good cause is a new approach. If I was replying to consultation I do not think that I would have anything against the good causes—indeed, I support extra spending on health and education—but some of the things that the Minister said earlier, to which I shall return later, have caused me much anxiety. One problem is that the Government are looking to fund some of their own political commitments through the new fund. We shall have to be careful to ensure that it is made clear in the future that that is not the purpose of the new fund.
I am concerned about some of the good causes because in the areas of health and education we are looking at setting up after-school clubs and health centres. However, they are rolling initiatives and it seemed alien to the debates that took place when the lottery legislation was first passed that such schemes would be initiated. The lottery was supposed to fund causes which would not attract a never-ending price tag. When I first read the Bill I believed that that was the case and that the after-school clubs and the health centres were to be funded on that basis, but the Minister said that they will have a limited time period. If that is the case, who is to fund them after that initial period? Once government funding runs out they will suffer, just as so many other initiatives have suffered in the past. They will be in deep trouble and it is then often a quick descent into extinction.
I support the after-school clubs initiative, but it is unfortunate that no recognition has been given to the work undertaken by the Prince's Trust in this respect. The new after-school clubs will be based on those established by the Prince's Trust some years ago. We should note that those educational projects will be closely aligned to the work undertaken by the Prince's Trust.
I was slightly concerned about what the Minister said on health. I understood that many of the things that he is considering were already provided in GPs' surgeries. I know that the health services are meant to be organic at the moment, but I cannot help feeling that many of the new services will end up being based in GP practices or in health authority grounds. Therefore, are we not talking about matters with which the health authorities were dealing before these provisions on health centres were first considered? Which professionals will man the health centres? Will they come directly from the health service?

763
My main worry is that within a short period of time the new provisions will be used for areas that were previously funded by taxation. That was confirmed to me by a press release dated 24th September from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in which the Secretary of State said:
"As with all Lottery funding, the New Opportunities Fund will only support initiatives additional to core programmes funded from taxation. The Government has a strong and abiding commitment to the principle of additionality. That means that Lottery funding will not he used for core areas like NHS beds or school buildings but will focus on innovative and desirable initiatives beyond".
I would say that "core areas" go somewhat further than the provision of NHS beds or school buildings.
There is a problem when following that line of debate. It seems clear that to a large degree the money has already been allocated and spent, despite the cautionary words of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. In another statement, the Secretary of State said on 1st October:
"I can announce today that we will do even better than that. I have taken steps to ensure that money from the Lottery will flow into the New Opportunities Fund ahead of the legislation, so that it builds up ready to be used as soon as the Bill is passed. Part of every pound we spend on a Lottery ticket will be paid into the new Fund. earmarked for education and health. And when will this start? Next week—from next Wednesday's draw".
It seems that any debate on this has been overshadowed by the Government's commitment to go ahead without the possibility of the provisions being amended in this House.
I turn now to some of the other areas covered by the Bill. I refer to the provision of financial penalties for breach of licence conditions. The Minister said earlier that we do not wish to lob nuclear handgrenades. I thought that a particularly interesting expression. I have trained with handgrenades and they are dangerous enough as it is; "nuclear handgrenades" sound fairly suicidal. I hope that the Minister will look favourably upon the amendments that we plan to table to limit the scope of the fines in cash terms or to make them commensurate with the breach of licence. Not all breaches of licence are due to fraud; they may be to do with such minor matters as the misuse of the lottery logo. I believe that this is an important point. Although I do not believe that the Government would use it for a smash and grab on excess profits from Camelot's funds, there is a real possibility that those who bid for the new lottery franchise will see it as a direct threat to future operating profit and it may put them off.
I suggest, perhaps cynically, that the Government have changed their position somewhat by setting up an advisory panel. Perhaps I am being paranoid and cynical, but if the Government suffered heavily from the spat between the Secretary of State and Camelot and decided that Camelot might be the best operator for the lottery they would not want to be in a position of directly appointing Camelot again. A lottery advisory board would be able to do that. I see the Minister shaking his head.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is simply wrong.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, as to Camelot I hope that the Minister will keep an open mind when looking
764
at the new operator. Camelot has proved to be very effective. It would have to go to the best operator in future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want any misunderstanding to continue for the rest of the debate. Of course, Camelot will be able to apply for a continuation of its licence. I believe that it has already indicated that it intends to do so.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps he can provide some clarification when he sums up. I turn to the issue of distribution. I believe that the Bill is vague in one respect. Clause 9 gives the lottery the power to distribute funds through philanthropic and other institutions. This raises a problem. Perhaps my lack of research has led to my failure to find an answer to it. When making a lottery application, one of the major difficulties at the moment is finding matching funds. Someone makes an application to a philanthropic institution to provide matching funds and does not realise that the funds of that philanthropic come from the lottery. If he then goes to the lottery for additional funds will that be viewed as an attempt to try to get 100 per cent. funding directly from the lottery? I hope that the Minister can provide a clear answer to that.
Another area that causes a degree of concern, and which strangely is not on the face of the Bill, is the National Lottery Distribution Fund. When the legislation was first proposed everyone was gazing into a crystal ball as to what profits would be made and how successful the lottery would be. Very stringent targets were set in deciding how the money should be held and distributed. However, there is a major difficulty in that at the moment the NLDF stands at £3.5 billion. That cannot be right. The prediction of the Treasury as of March 1996 was £1.5 billion. There appears to be a massive build up with no significant means of shifting it on. I have heard the argument that that build-up is good for PR. I hope that the Minister will look at the possibility of bringing forward some proposals in this legislation to speed up the process by which earmarked lottery funds can be distributed. I give warning to the Minister that we plan to table amendments to impose a ceiling on the percentage that can be held in the distribution fund. This is dangerous because it implies that money will have to be thrown out. Conversely, the mechanisms for distribution would have to be improved significantly and more money would have to be spent to ensure that this area was carefully looked at. Following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, on the subject of interest, can the Minister give an indication of the level of interest presently applicable to the NLDF? On what basis is it set? The Government will be the ones to set the level of interest.
I do not believe that this Bill should be a justification for a smash and grab on lottery funds in the way that it has been presented by these Benches, perhaps unfairly, but there is a good deal of concern. While we may be unfair in our assumptions, it does not mean that the Government will not commit a smash and grab. Although lottery money is seen as an easy source of

765
funds, the amount that will be available in future due to the lottery can be only an estimate. I believe that it is dangerous to make assumptions about how much will be available when that is not certain.
2.6 p.m.
Lord Hindlip: My Lords, I declare an interest. In my chairmanship of Christie's I have frequent dealings with the National Heritage Lottery Board. I have been less successful in playing the lottery than the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. The tally of my expenditure to date is £980, with winnings of £10. The Minister has put the case with considerable clarity and conviction. I realise that the Government have a mandate to make changes to the distribution of lottery moneys. We also welcome the introduction of NESTA.
That said—other noble Lords have made a number of points—I have reservations about the Bill. It is less than wholehearted in its support for the arts and heritage. I would have hoped for something slightly better from a party which I would be the first to admit has a much better record as a supporter of the arts than we on this side of the House.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, admitted, the Bill is set against the background of the Government's stand to control public expenditure. However, as my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, it appears to rob Peter to pay Paul.
When the lottery was first introduced, I was under the impression that it would be additional to government funding. It is not a substitute for the proper funding of education and the health service. I should like the Minister to take on board a concern that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, raised about Clause 17. It could have serious effects on any long-term projects. I do not want to attack the Government. On matters such as arts funding we should all work together. When I wrote that, I did not realise that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was also representing the common enemy.
I shall say a little about how enormously important the lottery has been in funding the arts and heritage. It was a museum commissioner, Lloyd Grosman, who wrote:
"The money that the Heritage Lottery Fund is spending on museums and galleries throughout the United Kingdom represents the greatest acts of munificence in the entire history of museums. This colossal investment in our culture and educational infrastructure will benefit not only us but our children for generations to come, who will praise the intelligent commitment to the common good that has informed the policies of the Heritage Lottery Fund".
I share that view. It is true. From time to time that has enabled the nation to make significant purchases.
With the agreement of the director of the National Gallery, I should like to tell your Lordships that tomorrow he and the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, will make an announcement of the purchase of one of the great masterpieces of British art. I have been involved in the sale of this picture, both as trustee for the family for whom it was painted in the 18th century—with whom, incidentally, I am meant to be having lunch
766
today—and through Christie's, as a broker for the sale. Without the lottery money, that masterpiece—it is a masterpiece—would undoubtedly have gone overseas.
The National Gallery, the Tate, the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert can now compete on the world stage after being for so many years the poor relations of France, Germany and the USA. That has had a crucial effect on the morale of people working in museums. They are men and women of great talent and expertise. They are not rewarded like their counterparts in America. The lottery has given them an incentive to carry on and to make their institutions come alive again, as they should be, and not remain the cobwebbed, covered sleeping beauties that they had become in the 1970s and 1980s.
It would be a cruel blow were the Government to turn from being the fairy godmother who gave us the lottery to the wicked witch who sent them back to sleep again for another 40 years. However huge the lottery moneys may seem to the layman, as the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, pointed out, they are small beer in terms of overall government funding. They are also fragile. My experience of spending £980 and winning £10 leads one to a certain lottery fatigue which will become more apparent.
I should like to point out the competition our museums face. One museum, the Getty, has a minimum—I know that it has been mentioned previously in your Lordships' House—of 225 million dollars that it has to spend. One picture can today cost £50 million. Funding museums cannot be a stop/go process. It has to be consistent. For our great museums to be the educational establishments that they should be, they have to have comprehensive collections. In the case of the National Gallery they are of European paintings. There must not be huge gaps. That was a point made to me by Neil MacGregor, the director of the National Gallery, because it and the Tate were starved of funds in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Those gaps in their collections can never be filled.
There are great pictures in the National Gallery. That brings me to another point which strays slightly from the Bill but it is crucial to arts funding. In Room 45 of the National Gallery there is a painting by Gauguin called "Harvest: Le Pouldu". It was acquired by the Tate in the early 1960s through the acceptance-in-lieu procedure. Here I beg the Minister to give the House an undertaking that that excellent system will not be curtailed, as some of us involved in its operation fear that it may be. The Gauguin was accepted at a cost of £47,000. I asked the Director of the National Gallery what he thought the picture was now worth. He is a cautious man, particularly when talking to me about pictures! He said, "I suppose 200 times what we paid for it". When the nation acquired that picture it was a fantastic investment.
That is not an elitist view. There were 70 people in that one room, Room 45, in the National Gallery in the middle of Tuesday afternoon this week when most people were out Christmas shopping. About one-third were schoolchildren being given an excellent talk by a member of the gallery staff and about half were visitors to this country.

767
The people—I use that word advisedly—love these picture and I believe that we get superb value from our museums. I am convinced, too, that we get good value from the lottery distributing bodies.
In conclusion—I must try to make that lunch—in order that I can support the Bill, which I believe has merit, will the Minister give assurances, first, that he will look carefully at Clause 17? Secondly, can he give the House an undertaking that the cuts in percentages going to national heritage will be the last? We cannot have a gradual chipping-away process. Thirdly, will he and his colleagues—I purposely have not mentioned the mystery Dome—examine carefully funding for the millennium project?
2.16 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I shall not detain the House long. I wish to say a few words about the new good causes of health, education and the environment. I also wish to comment on the National Heritage Memorial Fund, which does not appear in the Bill and has been mentioned today only by my noble friend Lord Rothschild.
I believe that the new good cause Bill tramples over additionality. In my view, the money that will be used for the causes should not come from the lottery but from the Government. Whoever drafted the Bill has done so skilfully because who could object to spending money on health, education and the environment? The only question is where the money is to come from and I believe that it should not come from the lottery. From taking money away from the lottery one gradually begins to hijack it.
That is where the Treasury comes in. I have the deepest admiration for the Treasury, not only the body but many of the people in it who are my great friends. There is only one thing wrong with the Treasury—it is highly unreliable when it comes to money! Mark my words, it has got its fingers in this pie. I am not sure that I blame it, but that is the way it is.
I turn to the National Heritage Memorial Fund of which I had the honour to be chairman from April Fool's Day 1980 until I handed over to my noble friend Lord Rothschild. During 10 years the fund dominated the scene in the arts. It continued to do so until it was absorbed by the huge amount of money coming from the lottery. I remind your Lordships of some of the things it did during those 10 years. It saved, established and endowed 12 great country houses. It bought for the nation many famous pictures; Poussin, Altdorfer and Rembrandt. I remember that my last hour as chairman was spent with Lord Hindlipp, in his office at Christie's arguing with Lord Cholmondeley about whether the nation would be allowed to buy the marvellous picture of the old woman with the cat. I had to leave before we knew the answer but I was very relieved to be told later in the evening that he had accepted.
We have also done lots for the countryside—for bogs, fens and flats. We have done lots for the animal kingdom—for birds, bees, and even, I may say, the greater horseshoe bat, which was one of our great triumphs in the early days.
768
We did all that and lots more in 10 years. We spent £130 million. We started off with £12.4 million which was all that was left from the ravished land fund. We were promised by the Government that they would give us £3 million each year, which they did, but they also, according to the Bill, were allowed to give us lumps of money when they felt like it. Therefore, I spent my time sucking up to them and we got quite a lot of money that way. We were able to spend £130 million in 10 years and have some left over.
We were able to do that because the Government trusted us and did not try to fiddle about and do it themselves. The National Heritage Memorial Fund has really disappeared under all the money that my noble friend has, but it is still there. The money from the lottery may fade away. People may not want to go on with it. I never buy a ticket. We may find that the National Heritage Memorial Fund is left once again to dominate the scene. Therefore, I ask the Minister to please give it money. In a few days we shall hear what it is to receive this year. I hope that it will be a sizeable sum which will not grow less in years to come.
2.22 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, many noble Lords have declared an interest and I should as well because it is my intention to win the £25 million in Saturday's roll-over.
One of the problems in speaking late in any debate is that often what you want to say has already been said. In my case, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the Labour Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, have said a lot of what I wanted to say. But I believe that if a point is right, it is worth while making it again and again.
The lottery has been the most fantastic success, a far greater success, I am sure, than my government thought it would ever produce. But the distribution of the funds is extremely inefficient and cumbersome. We have heard the figures bandied about several times and I shall not bore your Lordships with them too much. But to have £3.3 billion in a reserve fund, which means that 30 per cent. of the funds have actually been used while 70 per cent. are unused, is not good enough.
We have a situation where not one of the distributing bodies has issued much more than about 50 per cent. and some have distributed only 17 per cent. That must be looked at. Is not the answer that we need more of a one-stop shop for lottery funding? My sport in particular is show jumping and it is extremely difficult for anybody involved in it to know where to go for a grant. They do not know whether to go to the Scottish or English Sports Councils or one of the distributing funds. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, an equal amount of money must be found to make up the sum that is required. That often makes the whole project, however worthy, totally impossible to accomplish. Therefore, can we not consider grants instead of loans?
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, said that we must help the urban primary schools. I could not agree with him more. However, the big problem for those schools is that they cannot find any land to build upon; indeed, it

769
has all been built over. Therefore, we must do something to enable them to build and create an environment to keep children off the streets.
The Treasury receives 12p in the pound from every lottery ticket sold. It also receives 17.5 per cent. VAT on all capital projects, so it does very well. Lottery funding was ring fenced, but I rather believe that the Bill will be taking us down a slippery slope whereby that ring-fencing will be breached. We must watch the situation most carefully. Lottery funding should not be used for government business; that should come from normal taxation. Funding from the lottery should be for the benefit of specific causes—the good causes. That was a good name, so let us keep it. It is very important that we do not use such funding as an extra layer of taxation and thus avoid government responsibilities.
NESTA will provide assistance for artists, musicians and architects. However. I suggest that it should also help sports people because sport is a terribly important part of our upbringing. But let us turn now to the nitty-gritty. In the Bill we see, retrospectively "with effect from 14th October", that four good causes will now receive only 16⅔ per cent. as opposed to 20 per cent. The millennium good cause will continue to receive 20 per cent. and the new health, education and environment cause will receive 13⅓ per cent.
I hesitate to ask the Minister the following question, but I believe it to be one that really needs to be asked. What is the money for the millennium good cause being spent on? Is it a sacred cow or a lasting monument? What will it be filled with? Moreover, how are we to get there? It is becoming more and more apparent every day that the Jubilee Line will not get us there. What is the point in having the site at Greenwich if no one can gain access to it except by way of taxi? That will be a very expensive form of transport, although taxi-drivers will no doubt love it.
I see again that Scotland is to be used as a guinea-pig, as it was for the poll tax and as it will be in terms of devolution to a large extent. However, as this will be testing the water as regards co-operation between distributors, I hope that it will work and that it will be proved to work. I commend the Government for at least experimenting with this and letting the Scots, who have always been known as canny folk, have a crack at the whip.
I have three areas of concern. If we want the lottery to be the people's lottery, which is what the Government seem to want, perhaps I may point out that the distributor at present seems to be interested only in new ideas and new concepts. Laudable though the latter is, I should like to suggest that the time has now come for us to reconsider the position. During Question Time today, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said that she was keen for brownfield sites to be looked at in this connection. But should we not be updating some of our existing facilities rather than building new ones? Is it not strange that London does not have a national exhibition centre of excellence? Would it not be sensible to update something like Wembley Arena and make it into an exhibition centre of excellence? Why do
770
Birmingham and Glasgow have one when London, our capital city, has not? If we want to hold a special exhibition for the sporting world, or anything of that nature, it is difficult to generate any sort of interest and persuade people to come to London. That has to be a great shame.
My second point concerns charities. I know that the lottery was not designed to help charities, but time has moved on. Charities have lost an enormous amount of money; indeed, they have taken a terrible hammering as the result of the lottery. The people still think that lottery money is going to charities in enormous sums. Only 32 per cent. of available funds have been distributed in this area. Donations are not made directly to many mainstream charities. Some have received funds. The Mental Health Foundation and the Samaritans both received over £500,000. The Red Cross received £190,000, but Cancer Research only £100,000. However, the lifeboats have received nothing. This is a slightly different point from what we are discussing. but I have always thought it was rather peculiar that the Lifeboat Association should be run entirely by charity as it performs a fantastic service.
Many charities could save the taxpayer an enormous sum of money, for example if they found a cure for cancer or produced a useful industry to make a third world country more self-sufficient. Charities also help the community by providing healthcare and advice for the ill and infirm. We need to look again at funding for charities. We must give them more if they are to survive. We have taken with one hand and now the time has come when we must give with the other. Surely we could use some of the reserves, or even the interest on those reserves, which have not been distributed.
We must put more money into sport. Let us have an academy of excellence. Let us encourage the youth of today by keeping them off the streets, keeping them away from drugs and creating a team spirit. Sport is the hub of a new beginning. It provides a focal point for pride in one's country. whether that be England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland or anywhere else in the world. There is something attractive in doing something for one's country. One of the proudest moments of my life was when my daughter entered a major show jumping competition for Britain, won the competition and the National Anthem played. That was the most moving moment of my whole life.
How many people never discover what their true vocation is? I wonder how many noble Lords here today have discovered their true vocation in life. How many of us could have been great footballers but have not played football or great golfers but have not played golf? If we had an academy of excellence we could give people a chance to find that out. Let us give tomorrow's youth a chance today. We have the opportunity to do so through the lottery; please let us use it.
2.32 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I rise to speak with some reluctance this afternoon, caught. like many noble Lords no doubt, between a headache and a lunch. However, a few comments and observations may be

771
appropriate. I greatly welcome this Bill because not only does it give effect to our Government's manifesto commitment to establish a genuine people's lottery, but I think it is also virtuous legislation. I never thought there would be a time when I would say in a House such as this that I welcomed virtuous legislation. However, I believe that this is virtuous legislation. It attempts genuinely both to improve and to reform something which has been established with good, sound foundations.
I was somewhat concerned when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, speak earlier, as I thought he was being unduly churlish. He said in effect that a good idea could not be improved upon. We have a good idea with the lottery and no doubt it will be improved upon. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not here to hear the question, but I ask what is wrong with populism? I thought that the lottery was a fine instrument of populism when it was introduced some three or four years ago. I have no problem with that. Building on populism is no bad thing. To ignore the criticism that people have made of the lottery is churlish in the extreme. After all, it should shape our perceptions as to how the lottery should develop. I could not quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was so contentious in his remarks on the people's criticism. This afternoon we have the opportunity to put some of that right.
I also welcome the sixth good cause. There have been complaints in this debate that the sixth good cause is all about undermining the principle of additionality. Perhaps it brings something new to the lottery. Perhaps it is entering the field of hypothecation, trying to set aside specific sums of money for a series of good causes through NESTA, which is surely long overdue as part of our urgent consideration.
My primary concern today is to make a few observations about the valuable impact of the lottery on the sports world. I have been much impressed by the impact of the Lottery Sports Fund. I declare an interest. In my own local authority we have already begun to see the benefit of lottery sports funding. Our sports pavilions, sports clubs, and so on, have begun to benefit from its contribution. Next summer no doubt I shall have the pleasure and privilege of playing at one of the finest little local cricket grounds at Firle. It has benefited from the fund with a new pavilion entirely in keeping with the rustic retreat that the cricket ground surely is.
The Lottery Sports Fund has had a profound impact on investment in sporting organisations at grass roots level. Some 823 football organisations have benefited from it. Awards total in the region of £70 million. Of those awards, 345 were for projects of under £1 million; 202 were to voluntary clubs; and 256 were awards for additional, new provision. That is a fantastic achievement in the period of time that the lottery has been with us.
In considering the way in which funding has been applied, I have been impressed by the efforts and endeavours to reward those clubs and organisations in some of our inner city and deprived areas. I commend the strategy adopted by the Lottery Sports Fund in that regard. It gives us a pointer to the future.
772
The Government have made it clear that they wish to encourage a more strategic approach to the legislation. That, I believe, is most welcome.
I come to an aspect which is most important from my perspective: the role of the local authorities. It may not be well appreciated that local government is the major investor in the country's sports infrastructure with £1.5 billion of revenue funding on sport and recreation. That covers not only leisure centres, swimming pools and athletics tracks but also the cricket, football, hockey and rugby pitches vital to the existence of local sports clubs. There has been much comment about the demise of our open spaces for sport. The local government sector has done its best to try to protect those open spaces. Working in partnership with voluntary organisations through the careful funding by the Lottery Sports Fund, it has managed to do much good in stimulating and reinvigorating sport at grass roots levels.
I believe that a more strategic approach for the delivery of funds to the good causes is long overdue. I worry when I hear noble Lords on the Benches opposite complaining of the need for a strategy. seeing it as some ghastly form of state intervention. I do not see it in that way. I see it as a positive benefit and gain to us all. Through adopting a strategy, money can be put in the right place to benefit those organisations which can target their resources at those most in need.
I liked the statement of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his commitment towards new initiatives, in particular the out-of-school clubs, homework clubs and healthy living centres. With a strategic approach, I believe that the funding available through the lottery can be given greater effect by bringing together those funds in a corporate way. I believe that we shall benefit from the strategic approach over time.
I say this to noble Lords. Put your doubts about this legislation to one side. There is much to be gained from it. I like the new approach. I think that we shall begin to deliver a genuine people's lottery, with aspirations which are shared by the wider populace. On that basis, I believe that this legislation should be commended.
2.39 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, if I could detain the House for only a minute by chanting a mantra, that mantra would be: "Lords Rothschild, Inglewood. Annan, Howell, Hindlip, Charteris, and indeed, Bassam". I was informed by the Whips' Office a fortnight ago that I should be addressing the House following the Government and Opposition speakers. As I represent by far the largest grant distributing body of those asked to distribute lottery funds, I shall have to set out my stall. So fasten your seatbelts, my Lords, as I am about to exceed the 70 m.p.h. limit. I shall confine my contribution to the effects of the National Lottery Bill on the Arts Council of England, which I chair until 1st May next year.
I am often criticised, not least by myself, for concentrating on the material side of the arts: their value to our economy; the jobs they generate; their power to remake cities and restore individual and collective self-respect. As Sir Cameron Mackintosh has said, there

773
is also an immense cross-fertilisation between a small subsidy and the huge commercial earnings for this country from the arts. Just think what the show, "Cats", has delivered, among many other things, to poets—traditionally and continually the poorest and purest of arts practitioners. But when a work of art gets to work on you as an individual, in whatever form you find or choose, the only comparable experience is neither material nor intellectual. It is love.
Perhaps the most interesting day of so many interesting ones—I have often pleaded for a boring one—of my chairmanship of the Arts Council of England was when Chief Superintendent Keith Hellawell, since then appointed as the Government's "anti-drugs czar", came to me under the previous Administration with his beliefs about what participation in the arts could do for an under-class in our society disproportionately attracted to drugs through boredom and a lack of self-worth.
We are a fascinating multi-cultural island now. The demands on the Arts Council involve, as they should, reggae as well as "Rigoletto". I accept, and love, multi-culturalism. I find relatively little of our work "trendy", in the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Annan; I agreed with virtually everything else that the noble Lord said.
The National Lottery was a visionary creation by the previous Parliament—vision translated into action. Great work was done for artists and audiences. I defend that work vigorously. But there was a flaw in the vision. Here I depart from the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, although I agree with much else of what the noble Lord so wittily said, especially his "thin edge of the wedge" argument.
The flaw in the vision was that the lottery created a crisis, as well as curing one, where the arts are concerned. We all know that from medicine. You are given something that cures your condition or arrests it; but there can often be bad side-effects. Huge capital inflows led the Treasury to cut our small revenues. As a result, we are suffering the worst arts revenue crisis in my adult lifetime. We were forbidden by law to treat the two streams synergistically. Those faults should be laid at the door of the previous Administration. Additionality was thrown out of the window with the first cash cut that we received.
I therefore intend to concentrate on what went well and what went badly during the first stage of the lottery in order to show that it is right that there should be changes. The National Lottery is an organism, not a monument. I shall then focus on the second state of the lottery, which will be the creation of the Bill before the House.
I pay passionate tribute to the former Prime Minister, John Major, for having had the courage and foresight to launch the lottery on a rare tide of all-party support. It is right to review its successes. It is the task of the new administration to make the improvements. The present Prime Minister granted me generous time before the election. I am hopeful that the arts will remain as they should, ecumenical. My successor must see to it that
774
they do. He or she will also need to keep a sharp eye on what, on the face of it, seems to be an unprecedented increase through this Bill in the powers of the Secretary of State, a withering of the arm's length principle.
Of the loss in previous expectation under the Bill to the five distributing bodies, some £ 1 billion has already been revealed. If Parliament gets it right—and I am confident that it will—then in spite of that we could have before us a unique and golden opportunity to achieve over time a rational arts funding system for an exceptionally creative small country at long last.
The good news for the Chancellor is that we could achieve it without additional cap-in-hand begging bowl visits to the Treasury by our sponsoring ministry. But for his part he has to do two things. He has to make it uncompromisingly clear, backed by the Secretary of State and the entire Government, that following the loss of money to the sixth good cause, including NESTA and the new opportunities fund, he will continue to protect the existing good causes through the lottery in the next Parliament, always assuming his party wins it. He must also put a plug in the bath where our grant-in-aid is concerned. Not more money, I suspect, but at very least no more cash withdrawals.
Let me come to the success of the lottery so far. Contrary to impressions created by some tabloids. unsupported by virtually all the regional media, the council's lottery grants have been hugely popular and of benefit to all sections of society. That is where I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Nearly 50 per cent. of lottery capital grants have gone to community or amateur groups. So much for the myth that the council only looks after the high arts, arts for "toffs", whoever such people may be. One example of this is Multi-Asian Arts in Rochdale which has received £40,000 for refurbishments, the purchase of a vehicle and musical instruments. Indeed, our Arts for Everyone Express Scheme was aimed at community and amateur groups. providing over 5,000 grants of under £5,000. We are creating the audiences as well as the buildings and artists for the next millennium.
Another popular misconception is that lottery money only goes on big projects. In fact, 70 per cent. of the total number of our capital grants are for under £100,000. A special favourite of mine was £30,000 for the purchase of a Steinway concert piano for the Great Grimsby auditorium—one of the first awards we made. A vast range of people have gained from the people's lottery. Eighty per cent. of our Arts for Everyone lottery programme has been aimed at children and young people. In short: education, education, education. For example, there is an educational project—Hi8us—in Birmingham. Here young people from six regions can learn professional television and drama skills with on-the-job training also provided for disadvantaged young people. The lottery contributed nearly half-a-million pounds to that.
Similarly, I am proud that the council has been able to give grants to hundreds of projects which have helped improve life for people with disabilities.
The council has often been accused of a London bias in its distribution. We cannot overlook the fact that London is the national capital of a small country.

775
It therefore has a high proportion of our cultural institutions—including this very Palace of Westminster—within it, as well as a huge concentration of our population within or in easy reach of it. The balance is nonetheless shifting towards the regions. Spending per head has been £24.34 pence in London; it has now reached £23.81 in the region covered by the Northern Arts Board. If initially the council seemed to be tilting the balance in favour of London, the lottery legislation expressly forbade us to solicit applications and London was quick on the draw. The Bill proposes to give us greater freedom for the distributors to act strategically. This will help us to achieve a more equitable spread and I welcome it unconditionally.
Yet I cannot emphasise too strongly that while London as a national capital and great world city attracts millions of visitors, London as a region is considered on all current definitions to be a deprived region. We are seeking more small bids here. With the wisdom of hindsight, the abolition of the GLC was, at least from the point of view of the arts, a bad thing. I look forward to a mayor with muscle.
Partnership funding is a key element in lottery distribution. In the period of less than three years since the council started making awards, lottery money has acted as a magnet to attract investments for the arts from many other sources. Local authorities, obviously; but that is public money, European funds certainly; but we are net payers-out. But private individuals, rich and infinitely less well off, have, if anything, oversubscribed to our partnership funding requirements, large and small.
In the case of film, private sector investment has risen significantly since the lottery and the council is now an investment partner and enabler. Whether film sits easily within the purlieus of the Arts Council is for the council and my successor to discuss with the Secretary of State. But we will not be able to see the outcome of the major new capital construction awards I mentioned above ground for the next two or three years, and then the scale of the achievement will become transparent.
Artists and audiences alike benefit from new and refurbished facilities both backstage and front of house. It stands to reason that a welcoming environment will attract more people away from television towards the life-enhancing moments which only encounters with living art can provide. These too improve box office returns.
Newcastle and Gateshead, Manchester and Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, London and Sheffield—to mention only the biggest cities—will soon be transformed in a way not seen since the confident years of Victorian and Edwardian industrial and municipal expansion. Much of that has been brought about by Arts Council lottery investment. Our partners in arts funding as well as sports funding, the leaders of the city councils, acknowledge the achievement trenchantly. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will welcome that. I can tell him that great plans are astir for Brighton.
A £22 million lottery award contributed to the reinstatement of Manchester's admirable Royal Exchange Theatre, following the devastating effects of
776
the terrorist bomb last year. In Gateshead, the huge Baltic Flour Mills site has been transformed into an international centre for the contemporary visual arts, creating over 1,000 jobs in a deprived area and likely to attract thousands of continental mainland Europeans to it. Arts Council investment is £33 million.
The Salford Quays at the head of the Manchester Ship Canal will become a multi-arts complex creating 6,000 jobs locally from a total lottery investment from the council, the Heritage Memorial Fund lottery and the Millennium Commission of £60 million. The lottery as a whole—not least our share of it—is achieving and ameliorating the effects of a major cultural and social shift; from cities as places founded on manual labour to cities able to compete in the contemporary economy nationally, internationally and globally.
But the bad news is that we have suffered capital feast and revenue famine. We see great theatres like the Liverpool Playhouse put into administration and the Royal Shakespeare Company in debt. Great opera and ballet companies, whose creativity puts into perspective some undoubted managerial deficiencies, have been trading from day to day and month to month. Our orchestras face severe problems. That leaves the council little scope to do part of its job, which is to respond to new creativity and innovation. I do not say this lightly. Again, we are suffering the worst revenue crisis in my grown-up lifetime.
We have seen a grant-in-aid from the Treasury at best held at standstill in cash terms and we have twice sustained cash cuts. I am looking forward—if that is the phrase—to hearing about a third cut this afternoon. I should like to apologise in advance to my noble friend Lord Puttnam. I shall not be here to hear his maiden speech because I have been summoned to the headmaster's study at the conclusion of the debate. So far we have suffered a loss in excess of £25 million in real terms over the past five years out of approximately £200 million. The Bill gives us an opportunity to redress damaging imbalances and to achieve stability by employing our two streams of income. It can be done, though not very quickly because real capital needs remain. Yet it must be done because the entire credibility of a government generally welcomed by the arts world depends on it.
I support many of the aims of the Bill. The Bill wants the people's lottery resources to be used for the people. We have been highly ingenious under the present legislative handcuffs in starting the process, with Arts for Everyone and Arts for Everyone Express singled out for praise by the Secretary of State. But what we have done cannot be at the expense of the high and costly traditional art forms. People want access to these as well.
A move towards a more strategic approach to the distribution of lottery funds is proposed in the Bill. I welcome that. We have worked very closely with the National Heritage Memorial Fund in my four years. I welcome the opportunities for greater delegation of funding to the regional arts boards so long as there remains a strategic authority—which I feel I legitimised personally by campaigning successfully for all

777
10 chairmen of the regional arts boards to have full voting rights in the council. I welcome the relaxing of the current rules which inhibit lottery distributors from soliciting—a curious use of language as in other spheres soliciting tends to be discouraged.
We support many of the objectives of NESTA and the new opportunities fund, which are in line with the work we already do. Concerning NESTA, whether we do it, they do it, or we both do it in tandem is a lot less important than getting the work done. In my view, the council and NESTA should work alongside each other to achieve the Government's objectives for young people and for education as well as important work in the field of intellectual copyright. This is only the arts stream of the work.
Similarly, much of the work of the new opportunities fund is in part carried out by the current lottery distributors. The Arts Council already funds projects which benefit children, including their out-of-school activities, and senior citizens. Support has gone to healthcare projects involving the arts such as Action for Health, in Newcastle. But lottery revenue support is what artists need most. We have done what we can to achieve it. We will surrender lottery money as, by electoral mandate, we must. We will not surrender easily on behalf of the arts in England, all the jobs they create, all the international acclaim they attract, the principle of lottery funds for the arts.
A last word about an issue which, as well as the legislation before us, is an acid test of the Government's intentions towards the arts in the future. As I have said, arts lottery funding revived Britain's creative economy. It has enhanced people's quality of life and sense of worth. We must continue this work. We have taken our mandated and mandatory medicine through the creation of the new good cause. We have even welcomed it—subject to the provisos I have given. But that, my Lords, is it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, we have not yet finished the job we were asked to do. All over the country, good and necessary projects are queuing up. Not all can or will be done; but we cannot address those that must be done within the period covered by our current agreement with government which ends in 2001. We have four or five projects left of major international, as well as national, importance. We wish to allocate around £200 million for planning purposes for them over the next few years. One is the South Bank Centre; the others are located in the regions.
But we cannot commit ourselves to any of these at the expense of the new and necessarily modest, revenue demands likely to be imposed by this legislation. Nor can we ignore good and necessary capital projects which are less expensive, both in the pipeline and likely to be forthcoming. We need therefore an orderly transition from lottery one to lottery two. If allocations are limited to the year 2001 there will be a crash landing, not a soft landing.
To plan for the future in a responsible and strategic way, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, we need confirmation that there will be arts
778
lottery funding following the passage of this Bill until, say 2005 or 2006: at least until the middle of the next Parliament. Given the diminished expectations now before us, we need more time, not more money. The political parties seeking office at the next election must declare their hands now, the party of government especially. Without such commitment, it will be very difficult for us to respond to any of the needs of which I have been speaking.
The South Bank Centre is the test case. Europe's largest and potentially finest arts complex, which includes the Royal National Theatre and the National Film Theatre, is public property. It is, in effect, under government control. Its largest component, the centre itself, is by the admission of its own board, in a disgraceful state. There is even a case, following the Prime Minister's recent statement, that the Government should make major improvements to public property under its control without recourse to the lottery at all. A visionary scheme whose main architectural component is likely to receive almost sufficient support from a single great philanthropist, was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Arts Council last week in principle. We cannot have a situation where the great borough of Gateshead receives, as in the end it is likely to receive, nearly £100 million, and an artistic, multi-form complex, central to London the capital, London the region and London the magnet for artists and audiences from all over the world, is not served properly. If it is also done quickly, there will be huge cost savings to the public: many, many millions of pounds. Many millions of pounds will have to be spent on it in any case.
In sum, the lottery will continue, and profitably, so new money is not required.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Is he going to continue for very much longer? If so, we can all go and have a cup of tea while he continues.
The Earl of Gowrie: I am on my last paragraph. While, after 1st May, I may well be the noble Lord's noble friend, if he continues to behave like that, I probably will not be.
My Lords, I recognise—and as a former Treasury spokesman with Cabinet rank, I even approve—public spending restraints, however painful. But new money is not here required: commitment is. It involves all the big regional projects I mentioned as well. It depends on the political parties continuing with a programme of cultural regeneration, education and the creation of audiences and artists, at very least until the middle of the next Parliament. This Government have a unique and golden opportunity to restore confidence which they have lost, in the world of the arts through allowing for the provision I have urged. They must make their commitment plain and make it now.
3.3 p.m.
Lord McNally:My Lords, it would be presumptuous of me to follow the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and his manifesto for the arts. It has been an extremely well-informed and often passionate debate. I have learnt

779
a great deal. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester takes comfort from the success of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, with scratchcards. That can only be confirmation of the text that to him that hath, much will be given. The Minister, having confessed that he is in the House as a Treasury Minister, will, I hope, take back to No. 11 the message that each time the Treasury was mentioned it was like Captain Hook in the pantomime. There was hissing and booing in the great tradition of a Christmas show.
I share the doubts expressed by my noble friend Lord Redesdale and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, about the "people's" lottery. I have a certain distaste for such populism. I think that, like patriotism, it is the last refuge of scoundrels. Parliament is rightly concerned about what the Government are doing with the lottery. If I have correctly gauged the tenor of the debate, the verdict at best seems "not proven" with regard to their intentions. I suspect that the House will want to probe the matter deeply in Committee.
When Parliament set up the National Lottery, it had some very clear ideas. It wanted a lottery which was corruption and crime free. We may take that for granted now, but it is not always as guaranteed as one might like. It should not be a pork barrel for the politicians of the day. It should not be a honey pot for the Treasury to raid at will. There should be transparency in both the conduct of the lottery and the distribution of the funds to good causes. Those were Parliament's original intentions; I thought that the last administration got it right.
Perhaps I may say a word about the selection of Camelot. At that time I advised one of the losing companies, the Rank Organisation. Although Camelot may not always have played its public relations with consummate skill, we must acknowledge that it has run the lottery with very great skill indeed. A number of noble Lords quoted the brief supplied to us by Camelot, which states that the National Lottery is the world's most efficient in terms of percentage sales to good causes and duty to government. If that is true, my strong advice to the Government is, "If it is working so successfully, don't try to fix it" because a miscalculation as to who runs the lottery would have a catastrophic impact on the cash flow to good causes which are now working, as is the Government, on the assumption that whoever runs the lottery will do so at least as well as Camelot. The decision on who succeeds Camelot—whether it is Camelot or some other body—must take into account the very high standards that Camelot has set.
I welcome some of the tweaking in the Bill. I acknowledge that the Government are within their rights to tweak the original Act, as they succeeded to it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I would welcome the right to solicit. It is silly that those administering the funds can neither solicit nor delegate. Both of those provisions will strengthen the legislation. I, too, welcome the idea of a strategic plan.
I return to a matter I raised a couple of weeks ago in your Lordships' House. I refer to the question of sport in schools. On that occasion I raised a parallel question
780
to that just asked by the noble Earl. Lord Gowrie, about funding after 2002. At the time of that debate, the Central Council of Physical Recreation asked me specifically to raise the matter with the Minister who was to respond to the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I confess that on that occasion I asked the noble Baroness a lot of questions, so it might have been a complete oversight that she did not answer that particular one. I shall ask the Minister only one question today: will sport continue to be a major beneficiary after 2002? As the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, said in connection with the arts, it is important to have an answer to that question, particularly if, under this Bill, the Government are demanding long-term strategies and long-term planning from the sports organisations.
There is another argument in favour of sport being a recipient of lottery money. I refer to the very eloquent comment made by Mr. Joe Ashton, Member of Parliament, at the time that the idea of the national lottery was being debated. He worried that the lottery would be a way of plucking money from the pockets of people who stood on the terraces and of putting it into the pockets of those who sat in boxes in opera houses. I do not want to get into a debate about the merits of funding. However, a good number of people who play the lottery are sports fans. Research reveals that when the lottery began 40 per cent. of people supported the idea of sport being a major recipient of lottery money. In the three years that the lottery has been going that support has increased to 60 per cent. I suspect that the reason is the strategy of the Sports Council to put lottery money into visible projects that are beginning to have an impact on communities and the lives of individuals.
A number of noble Lords expressed concern about the sixth good cause which covers education, health and the environment. The concern is that although it has great merit it also has many dangers. It involves the possibility of pork barrel politics and Treasury plundering. Most dangerous of all perhaps is the potential for it to become the cuckoo in the lottery nest which over a period of time squeezes out the other good causes. This is a real concern. The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked what would happen if lottery funds fell for any reason. I suspect that the sixth good cause would remain intact because we know that it is really government spending on projects that should be the subject of general taxation.
During an earlier debate the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made it clear that the Government, in the area of education, would give priority to the drive for literacy and numeracy. That is quite understandable. However, that is why we must he concerned that the intention to give sport a certain percentage of lottery funding is protected. I firmly believe that sport is not only good in itself but that it can promote a whole new commitment by parents and pupils to their schools. I urge the Minister to adopt lateral thinking in relation to healthy living standards, schools, clubs, and voluntary clubs and the extension of the role of NESTA in sporting talent. Do not exclude sport from involvement in these projects. If these projects have a sporting element, young people can he attracted to them.

781
Both the CCPR and the National Association of Head Teachers have drawn to my attention that one of the reasons why primary schools do not get their fair share of lottery funding is that many of them are small and there is a need for security for young people. For example, it pretty well rules out a large number of adults going into school premises during the school day. The 40-hour rule for community use is very difficult to fulfil. If that is preventing primary schools from getting funding the rule should be changed. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. If sports funding money can be put into deprived communities and into schools it can have a disproportionate effect on the lives of those who live in those communities.
Funding by the Sports Lottery Fund has contained priority area and school community initiatives which have had an impact. I was interested, however, to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said. If what he said is the case, there is a need for a further look at how funds are distributed. I hope that the freedom-to-solicit provision will enable the opportunity to be taken to do that. Independent monitoring of the first 320 completed projects has shown that the participation by under 18s has tripled; participation by women has doubled; and participation by people with disabilities has doubled.
We have seen that during its first three years the lottery has had an impact, especially as it is used for sporting organisations. That is why it receives support. Over 90 per cent. of all schemes approved, amounting to 65 per cent. of the amount committed to date, have been community level schemes under £100,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to cricket. Cricket has received more capital awards than any other sports. I do not know whether that was the influence of the previous Prime Minister. The lottery has made a substantial impact on the development of the game. There have been 400 awards to cricket organisations of lottery funds amounting to about £48 million. Of those awards, 290 were for new or additional provision. The example of cricket can be seen in other sports where lottery money has been provided to build up the sport from the grassroots.
The various sporting bodies have already shown themselves capable of developing long-term strategies for sport which are fully compatible with the Government's other priorities, such as inner city deprivation, underclass alienation, and health and education enhancement. But sport is worried that the Bill has too much potential for thin-ended wedges and slippery slopes, and not enough recognition of the need for long-term funding. There is too much potential for sport to be squeezed just at the time when its potential for contributing to social well-being and social progress has never been greater.
There are two challenges for the Minister. One was well put in the Evening Standard last night in an article by Liz Forgan. She said of the new opportunities fund in relation to health, education and the environment:
"In what way is this spending on health, education and the environment different from the Government's normal spending on health, education and the environment? Send for a Jesuit. This is theology beyond the discernment of ordinary folk".
782
I suspect that it is beyond the discernment of most people in the House.
The other warning I would sound relates to our beloved millennium dome. An article in the Guardian today claimed that if the dome results in overspending in a big way, the Government will raid lottery funds to bail it out. We know who will be squeezed by such a raid. I give Ministers fair warning that if they think they are going to raid sports funds for the Greenwich folly they will have a great deal of opposition, and it sounds as if it will come from all sides of the House. I hope that in those warm and friendly terms I can encourage the Minister in lateral thinking and look forward to his response.
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we have been privileged for almost four hours to listen to many outstanding, fascinating, wide-ranging and interesting speeches from so many distinguished speakers and therefore I rise with humility to add my few words.
The National Lottery was a tremendous event for this country, set up by the previous government. I remember it well as it was during the same week that I made my maiden speech. I said then that we had taken an important step in line with the rest of Europe and I congratulate the former Prime Minister, John Major, as did my noble friend Lord Gowrie.
The National Lottery has proved to be an even more important step than I imagined because of the large sums of money it has generated; £4.2 billion to date for the five good causes. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and my noble friend Lord Hindlip that the money does and will enhance the quality of life. However, the purpose of the Bill is to divert the lottery from the purpose for which it was set up.
The provisions of the Bill blatantly breach the additionality principle, as we heard in an eloquent and brilliant speech from my noble friend Lord Skidelsky and from the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Charteris. It is contrary to the principles of the 1993 Act. In their White Paper, the Conservative Government stated:
"The Government is firmly of the view that the proceeds should not he directed towards the main area of public expenditure, and that it would be inappropriate for the lottery to be seen as a way of funding the National Health Service, education or similar programmes … The Government does not intend that money provided from the lottery should substitute for that provided in other ways".
Assurances that the Conservative government were strongly committed to additionality were repeatedly given in Parliament. Indeed, this was done to oblige the then Opposition, who pressed for the principle to be enshrined in law. When the Opposition became the Government, the Prime Minister said:
"We don't believe it would be right to use the lottery to pay for things which are the Government's responsibility".
Sadly, I cannot agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who did not agree with that, but I can agree with my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, who stressed the point.

783
Yet, the new opportunity fund proposed by the Bill is to fund areas which traditionally have been funded out of general taxation: health, education and the environment. Recently it was announced that the new opportunity fund will pay for a scheme to extend school childcare. The partnership funds are to be provided by the Exchequer. This proves that any claim that the Government are respecting the additionality principle is hollow. It is a slippery slope. But as was rightly said by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, the importance of sport should be considered. That was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rowallan and the noble Lords, Lord Bassam and Lord McNally. I believe that provision for sport should be considered, but not by raiding the lottery.
The Conservative Government also legislated to ensure that lottery money was distributed to the good causes at arm's length from government. With this Bill, the arm's length principle is also jettisoned. That was clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. The Government are given powers to specify by order, rather than through primary legislation, which initiatives the new opportunity fund is to support. That is referred to in Section 43B of the Act.
The endowment of NESTA, after the first year, may be increased by an order raiding the National Lottery Distribution Fund at the expense of the other distributing bodies. That is referred to in Clause 17 of the Bill. Do we really want that?
The Bill also gives powers to the Secretary of State to instruct the distributing bodies to prepare strategic plans in Clause II. Those are redolent of the single programming documents of the European structural funds, the key instrument for implementing social policy from above. I do not believe that we should dismiss totally the new ideas on funding made by my noble friend Lord Inglewood in his very entertaining speech.
That centralising trend and grabbing attitude are no surprise. The Secretary of State has already shown his colours by earmarking funds for the new opportunities fund ahead of the enactment of legislation and in breach of the 1993 Act, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Moreover, he did so before the consultation process was complete, showing little respect for the people or their representatives. This will no longer be the National Lottery; this will be the lottery of a government displaying great arrogance. We have been told by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that the Secretary of State will now appoint the members of the new lottery advisory panel and the members of the new opportunities fund—surely yet another arm of government.
The National Lottery as set up by the Conservative government has been dramatically successful. If proceeds for the original good causes are set against the relevant central government expenditure, the lottery has brought additional funds equal to an increase of about 110 per cent. in each of the first two years of operation; that is, £4.2 billion in all, including the millennium money.
The Bill, which gives the Government the scope to subsidise general expenditure, will severely damage the original good causes, as we have heard in the very
784
forceful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. The proposals for the new opportunities fund and NESTA have already diverted funds away from the five original causes, from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, by approximately £50 million, despite the fact that the backlog of capital underfunding has not been cleared. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that fines would eventually lead us to less money for good causes.
The intention of the 1993 Act was precisely to provide the capital funding needed to put buildings into the state in which people expect to find them. I am pleased that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester mentioned the importance of our heritage covering churches and cathedrals and that they should not suffer from the new good cause. For example, the Arts Council of England, expecting a £190 million loss of its share of lottery proceeds, has announced a capping of single capital projects. What is to he the fate of outstanding schemes like the South Bank and the V & A Spiral which are going to benefit millions? The Arts Council of England is also expected to have to reduce drastically the funds set aside to Arts for Everyone from 20 per cent. to 16.66 per cent. That is a heavily oversubscribed scheme intended to benefit the many. The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, referred to a revenue famine.
Furthermore, the Government have broken the equitable allocations to the five original causes. In view also of the provisions made for NESTA in Part II of the Bill, they appear therefore to intend to squeeze progressively the original five. Will the Minister give us assurances that that is not the intention? I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Rowallan mentioned the distribution deficiency of the funds and reminded us of the Treasury take.
The lottery proceeds were intended,
"to he a source for projects of lasting benefit to the nation".
They were not intended to be used as a slush fund by a government intent on frittering away public money on the latest public relations stunt.
We oppose this Bill both on principle and because we believe that in practice it will not benefit those whom it purports to benefit. This will no longer be the National Lottery. It will simply be the government lottery.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, after that, I shall start by saying that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, on one point—although I suspect on one point only. The noble Baroness paid tribute to the star-studded cast which has addressed the House this afternoon; indeed, she is entirely right. It would be invidious to pick out individual noble Lords who have made great contributions. However, I believe I ought to pay particular tribute, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, who is to retire shortly as chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund; and, secondly, to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, who is also to retire shortly as chairman of the Arts Council. Their ability to contribute to our debates is much appreciated. I shall, I hope, be able to deal with the points that they raised.

785
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, used a horticultural metaphor at one stage of her speech when she referred to the timing of the Bill. She accused us of seeking to pull up the roots of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. I hope to persuade her that we are certainly not pulling up the roots of the Bill; indeed, it fits into the structure of the 1993 legislation. We are not even seeking to pollard the Bill. What we are doing is a necessary four-year pruning of the Bill to improve the areas where, quite understandably, it could not be perfect. We shall be building on the most important benefits of the Bill and seeking to create new opportunities arising from the undoubted success of the lottery, to which many noble Lords rightly referred.
In responding to the debate, I propose to cover the following subjects. If I miss either completely different subjects or individual bits of my subject, I apologise and I shall of course write to noble Lords on such matters.
I shall, first, deal with additionality. Then I shall respond to comments made about the new opportunities fund. Thereafter, I shall respond to the debate about the impact on existing good causes and deal with the admittedly tricky business of the balance between the arm's length principle and accountability, because there is no completely right answer in that respect. After that, I shall deal with the difficult balance between the accusations made of retrospective action and the equally powerful accusations which have been made as regards the existing funds of underspending. I do not believe that noble Lords have quite recognised that the modest amount of retrospection announced in the Bill is an attempt to deal with the other problem which they have identified. Finally, if I have time, I should like to talk about the accusations of bureaucracy and then say a few words about NESTA, the National Endowment for Science. Technology and the Arts.
I shall begin with additionality. There are many definitions of this word. It is noticeable that they were not included in the 1993 legislation. I have pages and pages of them, but I shall pick just two. The first is the most detailed exposition made by the Conservative Government during the passage of the 1993 Act. It was made by Mr. Key in the other place on 25th January 1993. He said that,
"the proceeds of the national lottery should not substitute for that provided in other ways. The proceeds will not be brought within the controlled total, and the Government will not make any case-by-case reduction in conventional expenditure programmes to take account of lottery proceeds. The Government will continue to provide the finance necessary from within public expenditure programmes to enable their policy objectives to be achieved".—[Official Report. Commons; 25/1/93: col. 804.]
I am sure noble Lords will agree that that is a minimal definition of additionality, as proposed by the previous government.
I turn now to a speech made by the present Secretary of State, Mr. Chris Smith, at a conference on 24th September when he said:
"The new opportunities fund will only support initiatives additional to core funding programmes funded from taxation. Perhaps I can expand on this. The Government have a strong and abiding commitment to the principle of additionality. That means that lottery funding will not be used for core areas like NHS beds
786
or school buildings but will focus on innovative and desirable initiatives outside those areas—areas that the Goveniment do not currently fund but which are desirable".
I think that is a much more constructive definition of additionality and it is one which is reflected in the provisions of this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has described what we are doing as devoid of principle and logic. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has described it as "smash and grab". The noble Lord, Lord Charteris, spoke of hijacking. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to scoundrels. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to a slush fund. I rather think that some noble Lords have gone a little over the top.
Let us look at what is in the Bill and in the announcements that I made in my speech about the new opportunities fund. It is on those matters that the accusation of breaching the rule of additionality stands or falls. I refer to healthy living centres. I read what was said by my old and dear friend Liz Forgan in the Evening Standard yesterday, but I think she is completely wrong. Healthy living centres promote health and well-being in a variety of innovative ways. They will not provide core medical services, which are properly the responsibility of the NHS.
I refer to out of school hours activities. There has never been under any government the statutory provision for out of school activities which was referred to. However, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that such activities are essential for the national curriculum. But if that is the case, why did his government not provide them? I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester in his assessment of the value of that provision for society as well as in terms of education. There is no obligation on any government under any statute to provide those facilities. No one has done so until now. We can do so because we have this money and we can provide these facilities on a nationwide scale rather than as pilot projects.
Exactly the same argument applies to childcare. There is a modest amount of Exchequer revenue to kickstart the programme, but without additional funding it would simply not be possible. IT training for teachers is exactly the kind of programme for which lottery funding is needed. IT training for teachers has been neglected for many years. The expenditure which is proposed over the next few years is intended to enable us to catch up with what should have been done before. Once that has been achieved, and 500.000 teachers and 27,000 librarians have been trained, a much smaller annual sum will be involved but the benefit will be felt for many years. What better subject could there be for lottery funding?
I reject comprehensively the accusation that we have breached the principle of additionality. I do so because it seems to me that there is a great deal of cultural lack of understanding in what has been said. I reject the accusation on behalf of the arts, sport and heritage. It appears to be thought that any lottery money which is spent on the arts, sport, heritage and culture is somehow, by definition, additional, but that these initiatives in the

787
area of health, the environment and education are somehow entirely government responsibilities. The contrast is by no means so clear.
A number of noble Lords, notably my noble friend Lord Howell, the noble Lord. Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, referred to the new opportunities fund in terms that I find helpful. They have pointed out the interaction between the new opportunities fund and the existing funds.
As my noble friend Lord Howell said, the new opportunities fund projects will make a positive contribution to sport and the arts. As my noble friend Lady Young said, the existing funds have made a positive contribution to the environment which is one of the objectives of the new opportunities fund. I believe that that shows even more strongly that the body is not totally outwith the spirit of the 1993 Act but the rationalisation and expansion, using new money, of the programme set out by the previous government. There has been, understandably, no detailed examination of the new opportunities funding provisions because they are not in the Bill. No one knew about them until I announced them in more detail today. So I shall pass over that part of the problem.
However, as with existing funds, there should be no fear that the new opportunities fund is being overspecified by Government. We had to make a start; and we had to propose the first three major areas. But once those schemes are in operation, continuing funding from the new opportunities fund will be the responsibility of the directors of the fund rather than of central government, and there will be no difference.
I should say a word about the many pleas made for assurances of continued funding under the new contract. The 1993 Act sets out that the new contract provides an opportunity for review of the amounts of the existing funds, even of the existence of the existing funds. Therefore I am in no different position from any Conservative government Minister in saying that no guarantees can be given of future funding. But of course we shall seek to ensure, as the previous government would have done, that success is built upon.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord claims that they are a better government than the previous one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this Government do not claim to be more rigid than the previous government, in this respect among many others.
Lord McNally:My Lords, I am conscious of the time. However, in the Bill the Government encourage strategies but apparently without the funding for those long term strategies. That is the problem which concerns both the arts and the sports bodies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that concern is entirely misplaced. I shall come to the reference to strategies in due course. but there is no
788
reason to think that the requirement on funds to produce strategic plans is in any way a diminution of any security that may exist for future funding.
I turn now to the accusation that the existing distributors will lose money. It took up a good part of the debate. I can only repeat, perhaps more loudly and forcefully than I was able to do at the beginning, or than other Ministers have done, that the existing funds are still on course to receive their share of the £9 billion over the life of the licence that they originally expected. The sum of £9 billion is not an insignificant influx of funds into sectors that could never have been a first priority of government before the launch of the lottery. No change is proposed in the Bill from that which was intended by the Government and expected by the existing funds when they were established. What has changed is that more money has become available because of the success of the lottery. Noble Lords who think that that success is fragile should listen to those other noble Lords who have paid glowing tributes to Camelot. If the glowing tributes are right—I have no reason to suppose that they are wrong—I do not think that Camelot has run out of marketing initiatives. I have no reason to suppose that it will not think of new ways of ensuring that the income from the National Lottery keeps up. After all, it is fundamentally in its interests to do so.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I shall be brief. He said that the good causes will receive as much as they expected to receive when it was first estimated that the amount was £9 billion. But, in fact, they will not receive the same percentage. There is only one winner in all this—that is the Treasury, which will receive far more than it expected since the sums of money will be bigger.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the percentages going to good causes, including the new opportunity funds, will be the same as they would have been under the 1993 Act had we not amended it as is proposed in this Bill. The percentage going to the Treasury is unchanged. The amounts of money—spending is in pounds, not percentages—are no less than was originally anticipated. I am afraid that the noble Baroness's earlier remarks were mere assertions; they did not go any further than that in terms of argument. My advice is that the £10 billion is a cautious figure. I and my advisers believe that Camelot will continue its marketing activities. If anything, the chance is that there will be more money available for good causes in general.
Under those circumstances I have to reject the arguments that the additional funds—whether it be the National Heritage Lottery Fund, the Arts Council, the English Sports Council or any of the other distributors—are losing money in such a way that they require assurances from me of the indefinite continuation of their funds. The Government have assured them that they will receive the money that they expected, and will continue to receive that money until the end of the present licence. No further assurance has ever been possible.

789
A number of noble Lords made a point about other people losing money, notably the charities. As will be known, we have carried out research, together with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, on the effect of the lottery on charitable income. I do not deny that some charities—by no means all—have experienced a reduction in charitable income over the period. Whether or not there is a causal effect can never be established.
I remind the House that the National Lottery Charities Board has distributed some £680 million to charities and voluntary organisations since the launch of the lottery. I make that point particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, who raised the matter. I know that the right reverend Prelate has had to leave to make a broadcast, although I believe that he will return to the House—
Noble Lords: He is there.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to see him "outside the wall", so to speak. We are continuing with our policies of seeing to it that hard gambling does not take place in soft locations, so to speak. We are continuing to review our policies on gambling. The Home Office has a draft Bill on the subject which it hopes to introduce before too long. I will take the right reverend Prelate's points about the need for a continued review of gambling back to Home Office and other Ministers.
I now turn to the issue of retrospective funding versus underspending. What we did, in accordance with many precedents, which the Official Opposition will no doubt recognise from their comprehensive experience of government, was to announce, on 1st October, that from 14th October the percentages would change and money would be put aside for the new good causes. That appears to have caused some outrage, as if something had happened which was new and entirely illegitimate. What we are doing is trying to avoid the problem identified by many noble Lords of the underspending of money. The National Lottery Distribution Fund has, as pointed out by a number of noble Lords, vast amounts of money sitting in its funds that has not been distributed to the good causes. That cannot be right. It must be right that we should seek to kickstart our new opportunities fund as best we can by the modest means that we have adopted.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked me about interest and I gave an instant answer which was not wrong but incomplete. There are two kinds of interest. The one to which I referred was the interest due from Camelot on unclaimed prizes which it is donating to good causes. The other is the interest on the underspend of the distribution fund, a very much larger figure. That also goes to good causes and it is going currently at an interest rate of 7 per cent.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the power to divert money from the five good causes to the sixth cause which is mentioned in the Bill was not given by the 1993 Act? Therefore, the
790
Government have no right to do it. It may have been convenient to do so, but does the Minister agree that they were acting illegally in the matter?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I do not agree. They were acting in anticipation of legislation which will be passed by Parliament. There are many precedents for that. It will be passed by Parliament and if noble Lords start opposing it in this House, they had better think carefully about the political implications. It will be passed by Parliament and I shall gladly write to the noble Lord, placing a copy in the Library of the House, about the precedents for that action.
I move on as fast as I can, realising that I have missed out many significant points. I wish to talk about the problems of maintaining the arm's length principle and at the same time maintaining parliamentary and public accountability for the funds. In the second part of Part I of the Bill we say that we require all the distributors to announce their strategies. We are not determining their strategies; it is not for the benefit of government that we want to know their strategies. We wish to know what their strategic plans are, to help those who want to apply for funds. That is what it is about. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that consultants are making a great deal of money out of helping people with applications, and I have no doubt that that is true. But it is happening partly at least because it is not clear what the existing distributors are seeking. There is a kind of mystique about reading their minds. If the strategic plans are to be made effectively, they will deal with that point. On a point that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, made, there will have to be strategies for the continuation of projects when lottery funding ends. That has never been clear and it is intended that the Bill will improve the situation.
In response to my noble friend Lady Young, yes, the strategies will include the requirement for a needs assessment as well as a description of what is intended. I shall come back to that issue.
I wish to say something particularly about NESTA. NESTA is the ne plus ultra of the arm's length principle. NESTA is an endowment fund. Its trustees have full control over the endowment fund; it may increase in the future and there is the possibility of expanding it from private and other sources. But we could not have a fund which is further removed from ministerial interference—which was one of the claims made—than an endowment fund. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said that the problem was that it would be reliant on the flow of lottery money, but the reverse is the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that the Secretary of State had control over NESTA. Again, that is the reverse of the case. The Secretary of State has no power to direct its policies. He can change its objects, but only at the request of NESTA.
On the other issues of flexibility, of soliciting funds—I know that caused laughter, but everybody understands what it means—on the ability to delegate to officials, to regional or local organisations; all those points were widely welcomed by your Lordships, regardless of political party. A number of noble Lords referred to the

791
need for regional councils, to the role of local authorities, to the success of Art for Everyone and to the need for greater flexibility with matching funds.
I want to refer to the description of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, of "capital feast and revenue famine". He will recognise that what he is describing is the effect of the 1993 Act, rather than of the Bill before your Lordships.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I said so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course. We hope that some of the flexibility which is provided in the Bill will attempt to deal with that. But he will agree, as your Lordships will have to agree, that long-term revenue funding would not be possible because it would progressively erode the amount of money available for new grants; it would stultify the activities of distributors.
A number of points were made relating to the fines which it will be possible for the director general to impose on the operating company. I emphasise again that the fines are requested by the director general. I emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that they are part of the regulation process rather than an attack on profit. Indeed, they are a common provision in most regulatory authorities. It is unusual for there not to be provision for fines. The Heritage Select Committee supported it and the provision for fines has been generally welcomed outside.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, queried the need for a ceiling on the fines. Part of the fines is punitive and part is for reimbursement for the losses experienced by good causes through mismanagement by the operator. To that extent we cannot calculate what the losses would be and it would be inappropriate to put a ceiling on them. I say to the right reverend Prelate that there would be a right of appeal on very wide grounds against the fines. I hope that he will be satisfied when he looks at the detail. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the director general is not obliged to fine the operator unless he believes that it is highly appropriate.
Finally, because I have abused your Lordships' patience, let me say a few words about NESTA. I welcome the response which has been widely given to NESTA. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, welcome it—even the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, was quite welcoming of it. NESTA is not only an endowment and therefore spending its income rather than its capital, but it is also an opportunity to raise money from other sources. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, was concerned about Clause 17(2) which provides for the possibility of further endowments and that that might be at the expense of other funds.
I can assure him that we have no plans at present to expand the endowment and that Clause 17(3) says anyway that we would be consulting with existing bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, made very much the same point. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said that there was a danger of duplication.
792
NESTA's first task will be to survey current provision and to see where new provision is appropriate from this very large fund.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, universities could benefit from the fund. It is highly likely that they will. But we are not going to dictate to the fund to require that they should. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the funding could go to other causes. Why not? Those could include sport, although there is an existing fund for sport and we have just announced the Institute for Sport at Sheffield. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, the fund can, and I am sure will, want to work very closely with the Arts Council.
The debate has been very wide ranging. It has been to a considerable extent well informed. It has been to a considerable extent, although by no means universally, welcoming. We have the prospect of a serious and constructive passage of the Bill through the House. I believe that the Bill deserves a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill committed to a Grand Committee.

Copyright and Rights in Databases Regulations 1997
4.1 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations implement the provisions of the directive 96/9EC of 1 1 th March 1996 on the legal protection of databases. The directive has to be implemented by 1st January 1998. The directive harmonises the laws of member states relating to the protection of copyright in databases. It also introduces a new right to prevent extraction and re-utilisation of the whole or a substantial part of the contents of a database. These rights apply to databases in both electronic and non-electronic (paper) form.
The regulations will therefore amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to provide a new test for copyright in databases. Databases which, by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation will be protected by copyright. The regulations also create the new free standing right to be known as database right.
Turning to the regulations themselves, Part I deals with certain introductory provisions of a largely formal nature. Part II amends and modifies Part I of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in order to align its provisions with those of the directive. In particular, the regulations modify the definition of "literary work" in Section 3 of the Act by including database as defined in the directive. They introduce a

793
new Section 3A so that a database is given copyright protection only where, by reason of the selection or arrangement of the contents, the database constitutes the author's own intellectual creation. They amend Section 29 so that research for a commercial purpose is no longer covered by an exception.
The regulations introduce new Section 50D, which permits any person having a right to use a database to do any acts that are necessary to access to and use of the contents without infringing copyright. For example, in order to search a database it may be necessary to download the whole or a substantial part of the database into the memory of a computer. This could otherwise count as an infringement of copyright in the database.
There is also a new Section 2968 which makes void any term in an agreement which seeks to prohibit or restrict the doing of any act permitted under the new Section 50. So, in the example I have just mentioned, the contract for use of the database could not be used so as to stop it being downloaded if that were necessary in order to search it.
Part III of the regulations provide for the new database right for a database in respect of which there has been a substantial investment. Like copyright, this is to be a property right.
The regulations provide that the person who takes the initiative and risk of investing is the maker of the database and is the first owner of database right.
The acts, which infringe database right, are the extraction or re-utilisation of all or a substantial part of the contents of a database. "Extraction" means transferring the contents to another medium; for example, taking something off-line and copying it into a computer memory or printing it out. Re-utilisation occurs when someone makes those contents available to the public; for example, by re-transmitting them to someone else or distributing copies.
The term of protection of database right is to be 15 years from the completion of a database. However, substantial changes to a database will give rise to a further term of protection.
Database right will apply only where the maker, or one of the makers, is a national or resident of the European economic area or a business established in the EEA. Lawful users of a database will be entitled to extract or re-utilise insubstantial parts of a database for any purpose. They will also be able to extract substantial parts for illustration for non-commercial teaching or research, subject to a test of fair dealing.
As with copyright, users will be entitled to make certain assumptions about whether database right applies; for example, that it was published in the year indicated, until the contrary is proved. Certain provisions of the Act will apply to database right as they apply to copyright—that is, those relating to dealings with rights and the rights and remedies of rights' owners and exclusive licensees. Examples of these are assignment and licensing of rights and bringing legal actions for infringement.
The jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal will be extended to hear and determine proceedings relating to the licensing of database right; for example, where a dispute arises.
Part IV of the regulations make transitional provisions for existing databases and agreements relating to them.
All this may sound rather arcane, but this Instrument is important for our economy. There are believed to be about 350 firms in this sector, of which 30 are large suppliers; the rest are small and medium-sized enterprises. UK suppliers, however, have a share of the wider European Union market estimated at more than 50 per cent. So it is important.
At present, different standards of protection apply in different countries of the European Union. Databases which just consist of facts and figures, with no creative input, do not get copyright protection at all in some countries such as Germany or the Netherlands. One example could be the basic white pages telephone book.
So the Government's starting point for implementing the directive has been the existing copyright regime. We wanted to disturb the status quo as little as possible. The draft regulations reflect this approach. They aim to maintain, as far as possible, both the level of protection available for databases and a balance of rights and exceptions to rights.
The Government consulted widely on their proposals. Resulting from that consultation were three particular points of interest. They were, first, exceptions to copyright and the new sui generic right; secondly, the criterion for copyright protection based on the "author's own intellectual creation" and, thirdly, remedies for infringement of the new database right.
Not surprisingly, views between users and producers of databases were divided on exceptions which allow limited amounts of copying without infringing the rights. Many publishers wanted no exceptions, although some who are both producers and users of databases favoured exceptions. Librarians, academics and research-based industry argued that exceptions do not prejudice the economic interests of database makers and that without them untold damage would be done to education, research and scholarship.
The draft regulations continue the exceptions which currently operate in the copyright field. These relate, for example, to use for research, education and libraries. The copyright exceptions have been changed only where the directive specifically requires this. So the research exception no longer applies to research for commercial purposes—for example, the market testing of a new drug. This in fact returns to what was originally proposed in the Bill which led to the 1988 Act.
The exceptions applied to database right are those specifically permitted by the directive. The ones of most interest apply to illustration for non-commercial teaching and research. Teaching or research for commercial purposes do not fall within the exception—for example, a commercial training course might well not qualify for the exception.
These exceptions are also subject to a general fair dealing test. This is a test which also applies to some copyright exceptions. It has been interpreted as restricting the amount of material which can be copied or used fairly so as not to damage the economic interests of rights owners—for example, a student might copy a couple of pages from a book which he might not otherwise buy without infringing copyright; but if his teacher were to copy the pages for the whole class, that would not count as fair dealing.
Another area on which many comments were received was the test for copyright in a database, based on the "author's own intellectual creation". Some felt that no amendment of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 was needed to introduce this test, and that the current test of "originality" for literary works was enough.
The Government do not share this view. The directive is clear. It requires copyright protection for databases,
"which, by reason of selection or arrangement of their contents, constitute the author's own intellectual creation".
This is intended to exclude from copyright protection so-called "sweat of the brow" databases—that is, ones which involve time, money or effort but which are not sufficiently creative to justify copyright protection. These "sweat of the brow" databases will, however, be eligible for database right protection and, in practice, it is likely that many databases will continue to be protected by copyright, as well as by the new database right.
Views of respondents were also divided on whether infringement of the new database right should in certain cases be a criminal offence or subject only to civil remedies. Some wanted criminal offences but others thought that a new and untested right should not open up the risk of criminal prosecution, which could lead to fines or even imprisonment. The Government concluded that only civil remedies should apply. These would enable right holders to sue infringers in the civil courts in order to stop further infringement and to obtain damages in appropriate cases.
These regulations are introduced at a time of many changes. These initiatives affect the education, library and publishing sectors. It will be important to continue to monitor developments. To achieve that, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr. Ian McCartney, announced on 3rd December that the Government are proposing to establish a database market strategy group. This will monitor the impact of the regulations and undertake a strategic review of the way the market for databases is evolving and the implications of this for rights, exceptions and licensing arrangements. The Government intend to invite representatives of publishers, libraries and academic and research institutions to participate in the work of the group. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 6th November be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Haskel.)
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the regulation, which this secondary legislation is intended to implement in this country, was agreed by the previous government when in office. I support it. I underscore the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about the importance of intellectual property. I congratulate the Government on their timing in leaving this to the last possible minute. I have heard of just-in-time delivery but this appears to be just-in-time legislation.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, the Minister has given a most eloquent exposition of the importance of the statutory instrument. I declare an interest which is not commercial. I spent a decade in software development with International Computers and other companies. When I entered the other place I worked on the 1989 copyright Act to which the noble Lord referred. I did that in harmony and in co-operation with the British Computer Society's intellectual property committee. I then initiated the computer hacking legislation, co-sponsored the Access to Medical Information Bill and the Access to School Information Bill and brought forward my own Bill on employee information access. That brought about a small innovation replicated in the current regulations by the introduction not merely of electronically-based knowledge protection but, as the French put it, ou autres—not merely paper-based material, but anything else.
I wish to make two points. One is the difficulty faced by UK-based multinationals in implementing these regulations. The other is citizens' intellectual property ownership. Recently I wrote a piece on the latter in the book for UNESCO's director general, Federico Mayor, Liber Amicorum. With that in mind I believe that my principal difficulty in the next few minutes is to try to interest the noble Lords, the Whips on all three Front Benches, in the excitement of this particular bit of legislation. Between the lottery and other matters to do with the arts this vitally important piece of legislation does not appear to have created the enormous excitement that it should.
The regulations were signed before the Government were elected. In principle, they are good for business. For example, supermarkets can now identify each and every one of us and retain that knowledge through the bar code purchases that we make, targeting us in a most sophisticated way. The noble Lord is to set up a database market strategy group to look at the difficulties which the regulations will produce for some users. So far so good.
When I indicated my interest in this matter a few days ago companies and partnership as far apart as Masons, Clifford Chance, Reuters and many others came forward to say that they still had many concerns. This is an important piece of European Union legislation. It gives protection to valuable intellectual property assets. In that way it supports the creative economy. In broad brush terms, it is in line with the Berne Convention and with TRIPS, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property.

797
Where are the conflicts? At this late stage I should like to refer to a few general matters. There is conflict between the UK and the EU on database protection. There is also conflict between the European Union and the rest of the world and, even more importantly, conflict between the private citizen and the public sector, particularly at the sharp edge of the lack of private citizens' rights in the United Kingdom.
Inside the regulations themselves, there are problems remaining between the copyright owner and the database creator; between the authors and the makers of the databases also. There may be one author, one maker, one copyright owner and one database creator, or there may be hundreds or thousands. As the Minister said, there is some interesting new input where originality is brought up against the new term of creative intellectual effort whereby originality refers to the use of skill, knowledge, mental labour, taste or judgment, and creative intellectual effort is seen as something else.
In the other place originality was referred to as the sweat of the brow. It is considerably more. In musical terms it reminds me of comparing J. S. Bach with his contemporary composers who recycled his contrapunctalism. One could say that he used the fugal structure to push out the boundaries of musical expression, whereas perhaps they used it as a convenient straitjacket. Possibly one could also refer to the political diaries of Members of Parliament and pastiches of those diaries when created in daily newspapers.
Originality in copyright law is important. The Minister stated that databases will receive database protection, even when they are somewhat basic, almost mechanically created originalities. The new proposals do not deem that to be as high an effort as one's own intellectual creation.
It has been said elsewhere that cost compliance is large. It is only £17.5 million. Considering that the database industry is 50 per cent. in the UK, it is, if one likes, an Anglophone creation, and we are discussing an industry whose business knowledge output alone has a turnover of £10 billion already. That is a relatively modest cost for enhancing an industry which is of such value to the UK and which has an exceptionally high growth rate.
Nevertheless we are in conflict with the Berne Convention on exceptions. There are no criminal penalties. I still ask, why not? We had that problem with the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 which is why we had to bring forward the computer hacking legislation of 1990. We shall need criminal penalties in the end.
My principal problem is one of definition. What is a database? What is a file? In electronic terms, what is the difference between programme input, hardwired routines and software? How can we define the difference between text or program; between the database extract and a compilation? In other words, how can we quantify or cost the elements of value added to the text or to the data after the database itself has been created initially?
798
Today's database is an amorphous animal. It is changing continually. I shall refer to banking. I know that many noble Lords are in banking. We think of the SWIFT mechanism for transferring money around the world. We recall that these records for protection change continually throughout their global financial journey. It is surely difficult to define what a database is now.
Let us go out into the wider world. We live in an age where information is no longer scarce; where its value is no longer one of possession. We are moving away from the use of information as a possession to the use of information through management, through access, through alteration, as opposed to through knowledge control. For sovereignty, that great phrase used to justify exclusion from discussions in the EU by some parts of the political spectrum, depends not just on physical territory but on central control of information. I propose that that is now a relatively unattainable goal and that information flows have become geographically insensitive. I suggest that more and more they have also become process anonymous. When software compatibility became real we moved into a higher level of languages. For example, as regards input arrangements of data we can touch, speak, use keyboards, paper or other input mechanisms. That is why I believe that information flows have become not only geographically insensitive but also more and more process anonymous.
I suggest that these are seismic shifts which made the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 out of date by the time it came into force in August 1989. I suggest that any new legislation on information flows must reflect those shifts. I put it to the Minister that this legislation does not. For example, the French anti-hacking legislation which came in before ours, in 1986, was so sophisticated in its terminology that it has not been able to be used once. It is too sophisticated; it was out of date by the time it reached the statute book.
In a global economy the intellectual property outreach is patchy at best: it is criminally subversive at second best: or unavailable in territorial legislation at worst. China, Taiwan and Japan show the attitude of different cultures to intellectual property. The European Union weaknesses are also reflected with the inability of the differing membership to enforce the different data protection directives and the copyright directives which already exist.
I suggest to the Minister that those points make the difficulties of implementation for multi-nationals large indeed. I wonder whether it is worth going ahead with this regulation at all. It also impacts negatively upon the weakness of the European Union scrutiny process and I beg the Minister to look at that at some point. There is a need for linkages between the Parliaments: the need for the House of Commons to make far greater efforts in terms of European Union draft directives, which is the moment when things can be altered.
Finally, I turn briefly to the question of the citizen. The directives' decompilation procedures were described in the 1992 regulations on computer programs as "finely balanced checks" and the manufacturers' software producers referred to "carefully balanced

799
compromise". The European Union has a number of member states which have different legislation from ours. They can implement the directives where we cannot because we miss personal privacy laws. I believe that that shows up most closely the importance of the database directive and its negative impact on individual citizens with regard to medical records. I suggest that we have a cross-over between the private sector and the public sector. Are the records of general practitioners. for example, in the public or private sector? When I asked that question in the other place I received an alarming and startling answer which I beg the new Government to consider. It is that the Secretary of State for Health owns all National Health Service records.
Therefore, I believe that we have a 15-year copyright over databases which is renewable without, so far as I can tell, a great deal of trouble. Furthermore, the content of those databases is owned by the owner of the database, the owner of the copyright or the creator of the database. That national content will include the National Health Service records of every National Health Service user in the United Kingdom. The same is true of hospital records and of other public service records.
I wish to put down a marker that the content of databases impacts upon the protection of the UK citizen who has no inherent right of privacy. Despite the suggestions in the excellent freedom of information White Paper and the draft directive on data protection, we do not yet give constitutional rights on privacy to citizens.
I feel deeply concerned that as we receive a rolling programme of draft directives and directives from the European Union on copyright and quasi-copyright issues, the individual citizen in the United Kingdom suffers an invasion of privacy which does not infringe in the same way on the rights of any other citizen in the European Union.
I know that the implementation of this directive is now inevitable. I ask the Minister to look at the timescale to see whether it is possible to persuade Brussels to think about a review. Finally, with that in mind, will the Minister put every effort into restarting the WIPO treaty negotiations on the global protection of databases and intellectual property. I know that the United States opposition, the "knowledge should be free" lobby, understandably but inappropriately stifled that creative protection. I remind noble Lords that even Mozart had to eat.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her response and welcome her comments. I feel rather like somebody who, after inquiring after somebody else's health, finds himself in a long discussion about the meaning of life and the universe when he really wanted to know whether the person's cold was a little bit better. However, the noble Baroness gave me notice of her questions and I am most grateful for that. I shall respond briefly to some of the points that she made.
The noble Baroness said that the definition of a database was out of date and no longer applied. The definition of a database is broad and flexible and
800
encompasses both static and dynamic databases. The definition of a database is that it is a collection of independent works, data or other materials which are arranged in a systematic or methodical way and are individually accessible. Any substantial change to the contents of that database resulting from the accumulation of successive additions, deletions or alterations, which would apply to the database being considered to be a substantial new investment, will then qualify as a new database resulting from the investment of its own term of protection.
The noble Baroness asked about further directives and our ability to negotiate those matters with the European Union. Yes, a proposal for a directive on copyright in the information society was adopted by the Commission on 10th December and will be issued in the new year. The Government intend to consult widely on the proposal and will take account of the views submitted to them in the forthcoming negotiations.
The UK, along with other member states, will be represented on the Council working group. We shall be an enthusiastic and active member. Of course, our representative will chair the meeting while we have the presidency. We shall have a further representative on the committee. Therefore, there is every opportunity to air our views. I am sure that the views of the noble Baroness will also be reflected in what we say.
The noble Baroness raised the question of ownership of records with particular reference to the National Health Service. Those individual records combine to form a database. There are really then two issues. The first is the ownership of the database itself. These regulations and the copyright legislation will apply.
Then there is the ownership of individual records. In most cases that does not matter because it is access which is important. That is a question of data protection. We already have the Data Protection Act. We shall add to the data protection of the individual and rights of access when we implement the data protection directive. That will provide yet another opportunity for noble Lords to debate the matter in the House and also to debate the whole question of human rights.
The noble Baroness asked whether there was any way in which the terms could be reviewed. The directive requires the Commission, not later than the end of the third year from 1st January 1998, and every three years thereafter, to submit to the European Parliament, the European Council and the Economic and Social Committee a report on the application of the directive. That exercise should ensure that the terms of the directive are revised if it is not working.
The regulations will bring real commercial benefits through encouraging the creation of new databases and expanding markets. They will also have wider benefits in the development of the information society which is so important to our economy.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
4.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act received Royal Assent on 4th July 1996. It was introduced by the previous government and we were pleased to offer our support. The main provisions of the Act introduce a statutory scheme for prosecution and defence disclosure which were designed to address abuse of the existing disclosure regime while underpinning the rights of the accused in statute. The scheme involves a three-stage approach to disclosure—primary prosecution disclosure, followed by defence disclosure, followed by secondary prosecution disclosure.
Part 11 of the Act requires the Secretary of State to introduce a code of practice for criminal investigators. This provides that relevant material which is obtained in a criminal investigation is retained and revealed to the prosecutor; that material is disclosed to the accused; and that the prosecutor is given a written statement certifying compliance with the code. It also sets out detailed arrangements for the revealing of material and the time for which material must be retained.
The code applies in relation to suspected or alleged offences into which no criminal investigation has begun before 1st January 1998. Where an investigation begins before that date, the police will not be required to comply with the code, even if charges are not brought until after 1st January.
The code relates to investigations conducted by police officers, but other investigators are required by Part II of the Act to have regard to any relevant provision. In accordance with Section 25 of the Act, the code was published in draft form for consultation before being laid before Parliament. Various parts of the code were revised in the light of comments received. The Code of Practice was laid before Parliament on 3rd November 1997.
I commend the order to the House. It provides for the commencement of the code of practice on the date on which Part I of the Act is commenced. The Government intend that that will be 1st January and will proceed with the commencement order for Part I, and related provision to that effect, following approval of the order by both Houses of Parliament.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, now is not the time to go over the code of practice. Indeed, it was the subject of long consultation and has been modified accordingly. However, I should like to ask the Minister whether his colleague the Minister of State had, before
802
signing the order, asked the draftsman whether it would be possible just to give the date on which it begins instead of saying in Article 1 that it.
"shall come into force on the day specified in article 2 below'",
followed by a whole paragraph on Article 2, which actually does not say when it begins but refers one to other legislation, both primary and secondary. It seems an enormously complicated way of saying that the order will begin on 1st January.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's question. All I can say is that we shall bear his comments in mind when considering further orders. I cannot give the noble Lord any help on the history of this order. However, he has made a useful point and it is one that we shall certainly consider.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1997

  Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Regulations 1997
  4.40 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie)The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th November be approved [15th Report from the Joint Committee].—
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall move these regulations en bloc. It may be convenient if I give an explanation to the main purpose of both draft statutory instruments amending the legal aid regulations.
  First, the Advice and Assistance (Assistance by Way of Representation) (Scotland) Regulations 1997 extend the availability of assistance by way of representation to cover certain forfeiture and confiscation proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995.
  Under that Act there are provisions which enable someone other than an accused person to make representations in relation to certain proceedings to confiscate and forfeit proceeds and property. Legal aid is not currently available to cover representation of such persons at such proceedings. Given Parliament's intention that an individual other than an accused person should be able to make representations in relation to this, we believe that it is only right that legal aid should be available in appropriate cases. Extending assistance by way of representation is the most practical. straightforward means of ensuring that this happens.
  Secondly, the regulations extend assistance by way of representation to ensure that it covers all situations involving amendment or revocation of community service and supervised attendance orders under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. At present assistance by way of representation is available in

  803
  relation to a breach of an order and any amendment or revocation associated with that. It is not, however, available in non-breach proceedings. If amendment or revocation of an order arises in a non-breach case, persons can get criminal legal aid if they had previously received it in relation to the original procedures which resulted in the order. But if they did not previously get criminal legal aid it cannot be made available. Extending advice and assistance by way of representation resolves this minor anomaly.
  Thirdly, the regulations extend the availability of assistance by way of representation to ensure that any person likely to be imprisoned in civil proceedings can obtain legal representation. This arises from a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights. The case in question is that of Stephen Benham. who was refused legal aid to cover representations at proceedings relating to his failure to pay poll tax. The European Court held that this was a breach of Article 6(3)(c) of the European convention because in such circumstances an individual is entitled to be given legal assistance free where he has insufficient means to pay for it. The change which is brought forward gives effect to the European Court judgment and reflects similar change which was brought forward earlier this year in England and Wales.
  On the second statutory instrument, the main changes to the Criminal Legal Aid (Scotland) (Prescribed Proceedings) Regulations 1997 are entirely consequential on the extension of assistance by way of representation. They ensure that there is no duplication in the system and that no administrative inefficiencies are introduced.
  While the regulations make only minor changes to legal aid arrangements in Scotland, they improve access to justice for individuals who require it. I commend the draft instruments to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
  Moved. That the draft regulations laid before the House on 27th November be approved (15th Report from the Joint Committee1.—(Lord Hardie.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Museums and Galleries: Free Access
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure free and continuous access to public museums and galleries.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first, I should like to say how much I am looking forward, as I believe we all are, to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I am very happy that at last we are debating the issue of public museums and galleries, in particular the question of access, which was the subject of the Government's review produced last week.
When the previous Labour Government came into office, within weeks turnstiles were removed from the Tate and British Museum. Twenty-three years later another Labour Government do nothing of the sort. Yet from the Government's own research, 71 per cent. of
804
people favour free entry with voluntary donations. That is nothing if not a clear mandate. We have waited nearly eight months for a review which bears more resemblance to a statement of intent to have a review. Meanwhile lottery receipts have rolled in, from which sums have been earmarked for capital projects, without proper regard to the public's participation. In short, this is a question of access.
How we interpret or try to understand what we might mean by the term "access" is affected fundamentally by which of two different notions of culture we might care to adopt. One is an idea of culture in which a contribution is made to a body of culture, something which is already known or given. The other is about the working of culture—the creation of something as a journey of discovery, about making links. The first—which I believe to be the Government's idea—is about an expansion from the centre in an imperialistic way; it is about bringing people into the "known". Whether it is about setting up a "Social Exclusion Unit" or pushing lone parents into work, the Government's idea is that people join something called "society" which is already essentially defined. The Government already have their own particular view of society. They know, or think they know, what "society" or "community' is.
It is ironic then that we have a Government which profess an interest in the so-called "modern" yet are still effectively chasing after a culture that has already occurred. Because the Government do not have an interest in what we might term the "possibility of culture", because their concern is with the end product, this Government almost wholly identify culture with the market place. They see the radical primarily in terms of economic success. Value for money, a term which the Government have used repeatedly in justifying their stance in relation to public museums, is tautological. It is not value for art, value for culture or even value for content. It is value for value, money for money.
Charging in museums is effectively part of the Government's commitment to turning culture into business, and thereby prescribing all cultural experience. This may not be stated in their review but it is present implicitly, because to do nothing, for the Government to adopt a laissez-faire attitude, is essentially to say that the activity of culture will be controlled not by the Government, or, more ideally, more openly by the public itself, but by business interests. That destroys, and will destroy, the independent potential of the artist and the thinker because it destroys what should be or should become the independence of culture.
That is why I think it does not matter whether the admission charge is set at 50p. or £5, not because people cannot afford it, or because it is a psychological barrier, because a so-called modest charge once introduced will inevitably be put up, but because charging is itself an extension of a dominant consumerism, it redefines in a very narrow sense the interaction between the visitor and the museum. It prescribes the nature of the I experience, turning us all into "tourists" because it is

805
already assumed that we know what it is that is on display. In Charlotte Raven's imagined scenario in her article in the Observer on 30th November, a pay-per-view scheme would ensure,
"only the most popular exhibits would survive into the next financial year",
the exhibits themselves being surrounded by black boxes peppered with coin-activated peepholes—the evolution of what might be termed a "consumer fascism". The content of culture itself inevitably becomes business—money for money.
Charging will have the effect of replacing the cultural experience by the pursuit of certainties, with people paying to see what they know they will like. This removes experimentation from the cultural experience. Without exploration there is no discovery. This is another facet of education to be subjected by this Government to cost-benefit analysis.
In recent years it has become common for some of the larger paying exhibitions not to allow re-entry on the same day after one visit.
When I used to go to these exhibitions as a student, often with two or three others, we would perhaps go in for half an hour or so, go out and have a coffee, talk about the exhibition or perhaps something else, then go back into the exhibition, perhaps for the rest of the afternoon. I have found this opportunity to reflect and recharge really important to the experience. But now that possibility is being ruled out, and you are forced, as we all know, to go in one door and out another as if you are on a mass production line, which, of course, you are.
My second idea of culture has nothing to do with culture as either product or business. This is an idea of culture as being created casually, informally, on a day-to-day basis by all people, through the contact with things, with people, with the environment, with ideas. The Government call "access" a cornerstone, but I see it much more as a dynamic. Within this sense of culture "society" has yet to define itself. "Access" is not about access to specific groups of objects, but is about the nature of the experience of our contact with a storehouse of knowledge, and it is about free entry to museums as being a necessary component of freedom of information, a sine qua non, without which it is not possible to progress further in terms of developing the idea of access.
Museums are still in relative terms some of the few open democratic spaces left in the country where there is at least the possibility to mingle and interact with others on an equal basis. The idea of "free periods" promoted by the Government not only represents a drastically severe restriction on access, but breaks down this democratic space, a continuous space that should be for everyone at all times. By keeping different groups of people apart, free periods effectively "ghettoise" space.
Underlying the Government's research is a desire to predict the various needs—as they see it—of people, a process which categorises people according to their ethnicity, their age, their social status; a process which logically turns all visitors into customers.
I note Westminster Abbey's now confirmed plans for charging, which will group people according to the regular supposedly serious visitor, those who pray, and the tourist, those who supposedly do not pray, but are there, again supposedly, just to look. But what of those who do not know whether they are going to pray or not, but yet the experience they have there is such that their intentions, their preconceptions, are quite altered? This is often how I feel when I visit a museum—I do not know what my needs are, I certainly do not want to be told patronisingly what they are.
Perhaps the Government should give up some of their power by practising access themselves, by carrying out further research, by seeking out other people's ideas at different positions within society rather than making proclamations in the dictatorial fashion contained within their review. Just as a start they would do well to seek out the views of some of the smaller regional museums and their own experiences. In fact they have been grappling with some of the ideas of access as defined in the Government's review at least since the 1970s.
But also in Europe, America and elsewhere there is now, I believe, an increasing interest from museums and individuals in the specifically free entry aspect of the British system, which is being seen not as old-fashioned, a throwback to the Victorian era, but as an avant-garde model.
If society wants culture it has to be a gift that society makes to itself, not a business, because to see it purely as a business misunderstands its very nature. The contemporary Italian philosopher, Gianni Vattimo, has said that "truth" is not a constant, it is not a goal. an object or even a characteristic of an individual or a society; truth is an event, something that happens fleetingly and then is gone.
The best that we can do as a society through government is to set up the best possible circumstances, as we see them, for this "truth" to occur. This is what maximising access means.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for initiating this debate, and I am looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Puttnam.
I listened with interest to the speech of the noble Earl, who I know feels strongly about this matter. But surely my right honourable friend the cultural Secretary, had little alternative, given the present financial constraints, than to accept that some institutions will have to charge, and to base government policy on helping to increase access to our museums and galleries. This is the world in which we live, and I am sure that out of the present constraints some improvements will emerge through a different approach to resource allocation in the future, as the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon.
The DCMS has published a consultation paper on access policy and has asked all museums and galleries to submit their views and suggestions. I do not think that this can be described as cultural "fascism", as the noble Earl suggested. There are, of course, different barriers to access. Certainly much could be done to

807
break down such barriers to access—which the noble Earl did not refer to—as inflexible opening hours, presentation that lacks imagination and high travel costs. There should be more evening openings during the week, concessionary charges for certain groups and family tickets for single visits.
Why cannot we have season tickets which enable people to make frequent short visits, and comprehensive passes, as in Paris, which permit visits to a number of museums? The Dutch offer a "museum year card", giving access to nearly 300 museums and galleries across the country for under £20 a year.
At the National Gallery, which does not charge, more than a third of visitors spend less than an hour there looking only at a small number of paintings at a time. The same facility for short visits should be the aim of charging museums by granting special concessions. Some museums have flourishing societies of friends, and much more could be done to encourage that.
The V & A, which initiated charges some time ago, is most enterprising, with open evenings for its "Friends", when refreshments are served. I am glad to see that the Heritage Lottery Fund, which the noble Earl mentioned, has agreed to provide funds to encourage more touring exhibitions from the national and regional collections by funding transport and publicity costs.
Those national institutions that do not charge could also be encouraged to organise fairly frequent special exhibitions drawn from the museum's or gallery's own collection, perhaps from the items not always on view, for which an entrance charge could be made. I know that all the paintings in the National Gallery are on view, but that is not so with some of the other national institutions.
I hope there will be free days in museums that are obliged to charge and that these will not become too crowded. There is some evidence, I am sorry to say, that touring companies are using the free day to take along their large groups, and this makes for much congestion. I suggest that this needs to be controlled. We need also to consider the American system of tax relief for donors of works of art. I have been suggesting this for years but it never gets anywhere. It would help if some concessions could be made over VAT, which non-charging museums have to pay. Under the Sixth VAT Directive, charging museums are treated as a business but free museums are not and thus cannot recover VAT.
The Ashmolean Museum recently bought a beautiful Canova bust, with assistance from the National Art Collections Fund, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the Pilgrim Trust and others in order to stop it going to the Getty. It had to match, with difficulty, the Getty Museum's offer of £695,000, and on top of this there was a VAT charge of £54,000.
The National Gallery has to pay VAT of £1 million a year out of a grant of £18 million. The Royal Museum of Scotland and the Merseyside museums have been obliged to charge for admission because they could not recover the VAT.
808
Could not free museums such as the British Museum, which runs a publishing business and sells jewellery, replicas and other mementoes, be classed as a business to enable them to recover the VAT? A concession of this kind would help those of our national museums and galleries that are still striving to retain free entry. As for the institutions that have been obliged to charge. I hope that this is only a temporary set-back and that in the not-too-distant future they will be granted sufficient funds to enable them to return to a policy of free entry.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I am a trustee of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside. Indeed, I have been involved with that institution since my days as a member of the European Parliament for Liverpool. The eight distinct parts of the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside include the famous Walker Art Gallery, the Maritime Museum and the new Conservation Centre.
I appreciate the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and his diligence in bringing them before your Lordships' House. I was extremely reluctant, as were most of my fellow trustees, to introduce admission charges. As one who likes and enjoys, as it were, "dipping into" a much loved museum for however short a time, I felt that admission charges would militate against that sort of occasional use, as the noble Earl said. Apart from that personal approach, I also subscribe to the view that our splendid museums and galleries and national and local collections, are a rich source for on-going education and cultural activity. Nevertheless, it is now clear that funding, which has always been scarce, is never going to be abundant. Even the National Lottery does not fill the hoped for slot. As my noble friend Lord Gowrie said, rather more dramatically in an earlier debate, we are suffering a revenue famine in the art world.
The people running our museums therefore on a day-to-day basis now need some sort of certainty in their lives; they need certainty and time to develop new policies to contend with this state of affairs. Therefore, unless we all have a wonderful surprise today and hear from the Minister that he is doing a Santa Claus and providing an unexpected pot of gold—from what I understood from the Secretary of State's announcement this afternoon that is unlikely to be the case—I ask the noble Earl to consider abating his sincere and manifestly well-intentioned campaign in order to allow those who are trying to make a go of the new situation, to get on with it.
It is too soon to reach any positive conclusions about recently introduced systems for charging. Research has shown that we often cannot compare like with like. So at least a year is required—probably a few years—to allow the new system to settle in. Once that has happened, then I agree that the position should be reviewed and monitored on a regular basis.
I should like to take the opportunity to refer to our experience on Merseyside where charges were introduced in July this year with the "8 Pass"—I have copies for anyone who is interested in studying them

809
in more detail. Having made the difficult decision to introduce charges, I was somewhat disconcerted to find that our dynamic director and his team, having considered the matter fully, were determined to introduce the lowest possible charges—that is, passes giving unlimited access to all eight venues for 12 months from the date of purchase; in other words, a season ticket, for a standard price of £3. Frankly, I felt that it could be £5 while we were at it, but he has been proved right. Concessions were introduced at £1.50 and family tickets for £7.50 for two adults and up to three children. Special arrangements were made for schools and other groups. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, approves of that since it coincides with what he was suggesting.
That was all preceded by an active marketing campaign and the effect has been largely encouraging. After the first five months we can report, in the first place, that we have a more accurate system of recording the number of visitors by computer. But in order to compare like with like, we continue to use the magic eye system at two of the new museums. The magic eye is recognised as having a high error factor. My noble friend Lord Mersey will talk a little more about that. From July to September this magic eye system shows a 2 per cent. increase overall. However, from October to November it shows a reduction in overall visits by 6 per cent. and 3 per cent. in the Liverpool Museum and Walker Art Gallery respectively. How seriously this will affect our year-end results it is still too early to say. If we have a good response to our new run of exhibitions, we could see a rapid increase and improvement.
People seem to like the "8 Pass" and consider it excellent value for money. There have been only five official complaints in the five months of operation. Early visitor surveys show a high level of satisfaction and we are getting a high number of repeat visits, which is very satisfactory since the criticism of charging has always been that it deters people from making subsequent visits. Trading is up 10 per cent. overall in the shops and, although there has been a decline in visitors to the Maritime Museum, this can in part be attributed to the temporary closure of the Tate for reconstruction.
I did have other specific points to make but I recognise that my time is running out. The evidence we have so far from the Liverpool and Merseyside experience, which can by no means be compared with London, which, after all, is packed with tourists apart from anything else, shows that a responsible social charging policy can be a positive factor both for the people working within our museums and galleries and for the rest of us—the customers and consumers—who, as a result of modest charges, can continue to see more and more of our great national collections rather than seeing parts of the museums closed off for lack of funds. I hope many of your Lordships will agree with me that we should at least keep an open mind until we in Merseyside and others elsewhere show a fair and measured consideration of our new charging policies. We shall certainly support the development of a code of
810
good practice on access. But meanwhile we await the results of the Government's fundamental review of spending.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, this is another arts debate reduced to a six-minute farce. Nevertheless, the decision of the Minister to defer a "free access" statement must be the right decision. He has a team, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which already displays outstanding ability and real love for the arts. I feel that in their conjoint heart they wish to preserve the great principle. It is our job to give them support, encouragement and advice.
First, I hope he will make amends for the brutal treatment of the museums over the recent years—labour intensive, inflation always above RPI. Cuts have slashed 18 per cent., on average, of income in real terms. I hope that he will be able to establish a sensible basis at last for funding to replace the present hand-to-mouth procedure.
Secondly, I would advise him to be chary of the Museums and Galleries Report on public access. For 240 years the British Museum and for 170 years the National Gallery have steadfastly maintained free access upon the principle of their foundation, in the words of Robert Peel,
"to cement the bond of union between the richer and poorer orders so that each can take pleasure in the same things".
It has survived two wars and many fundamental crises, a principle overwhelmingly supported in the report by the national and university museums and exported to the United States and enshrined there in statute in the National Gallery of Washington. This the MGR calls "subsidising the middle classes", no doubt like the comprehensives, the libraries and Hyde Park itself. "Charge and keep out the unpleasant poor" seems to be their message. I have never forgotten how the greatest sculptor of the 20th century, Henry Moore, described the firing up of an extraordinary imagination in the fifth son of a Yorkshire miner by that young man continually making free visits to the British Museum. An irony indeed it would be if that principle died at the hands of a Labour Government.
Once one charges, the whole ethos changes. Directors become entrepreneurs; museums become businesses and places of entertainment, which I fear are rather dear to my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I look forward to his maiden speech with some trepidation. A visit becomes an experience; the target becomes tourists; numbers fall; costs per visitor go up; scholars are replaced by market managers. Now, most National Gallery visitors are British and one-third are Londoners. Local people just do not visit the charging Louvre, the Uffizi and the Prado and they will not, in England, if museums become just a tourist attraction.
The report describes directors as,
"public sector providers of culture".
Apparently, that curious species fails to adopt "user-pay policy" to cover
"the cost of service delivery".

811
It remains,
"influenced by Victorian paternalistic and philanthropic values".
Thank God, say I, and I hope, so does the noble Lord!
I also advise to be wary of VAT advice. VAT men thrive on complexity and incomprehension. I implore the Minister to call for an independent VAT assessment with positive ideas for reform. I know that the noble Lord will recognise the farce of local authority museums, the BBC and charging nationals recovering VAT, yet that not applying to those which are free. There is also the farce of VAT on purchases made from government money and of the cash provided by astonished benefactors.
Surely Section 33 of the 1994 Act and Articles 13 and 4(5) of the Sixth Directive can be of help. Is there not an EU recommendation for a low rate for cultural expenditure? If Elton John can be zero-rated, why not Neil McGregor? It is an irony indeed if the principle died in the hands of a little man in Customs and Excise or a small bureaucrat in Brussels.
Fourthly, should not the DfEE contribute towards the huge increase in the educational facilities for schools in the national museums? At the Tate Gallery in four years there has been an increase in visits by children from 50,000 to 150,000. As regards the National Gallery, the figure is 3,500 school visits and there is also teacher training.
Lastly, one should be chary of the private sector. It is vital and it must be encouraged, but where there is money there is power. Money, men and women are sometimes arrogant and ignorant. We have seen some problems at the ROH, the EH and at the ACE. The appointment of trustees is vital and they should reflect some understanding and appreciation of the scholarship and the skill of the devoted and under-paid staff in the historic position of the museum in question.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, the notion that I could strike trepidation into the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is probably the greatest single compliment that I shall ever be paid in this House. Before turning to the burden of my maiden speech may I take this, my very first opportunity, to thank all Members of your Lordships' House for the extraordinary warmth that I have felt since being welcomed to this Chamber some six weeks ago. I am not really sure what I expected, but the sheer generosity of spirit I have encountered has been a revelation. I most particularly pay tribute to the staff. I have never experienced a level of courtesy and consideration to equal their contribution to my present sense of well-being. I can only hope that, over the years, I am able to pay hack at least some of their kindness.
I must declare a number of interests. First, it is very much in my interest to be able to address your Lordships' House for the first time on this, possibly the most forgiving day of the working year. For that alone. I shall be for ever in the debt of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I am at present a trustee of the Science Museum and chairman of the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television. I also have the privilege, in company with the noble Lord, Lord
812
Hutchinson of Lullington, of being a former trustee of the Tate Gallery, both in London and Liverpool. So I come to the debate having at least some first-hand experience of museums and galleries at both national and regional level. What is more, I have been able to experience in different ways much of that rich diversity of institutions and collections covered by the catch-all phrase that encompasses "museums".
In recent years, a great deal of the discussion about the future of our museums and galleries has been dominated by what has appeared a fairly straightforward choice: whether to provide free admission or whether to charge. To my mind, it is high time that we moved beyond that narrow and potentially ideologically charged argument. To me, museums have two functions. They provide an historical resource in the form of a collection which helps scholars and others better to understand our past and, in doing so, provide us with a far better ability to understand our present. They also represent a public resource, one which involves a duty to provide enlightenment and enjoyment for the benefit of as broad a visitor base as possible.
But that dual role should not mean that we allow ourselves to become trapped in an increasingly sterile debate—a debate which tends to pit scholarship against showmanship. In reality, the questions that we should be addressing here are much broader. They concern the fundamental role of museums and galleries in a modern 21st century society, a society in which access to education and information alike will be absolutely central to our economic, and possibly even our moral, well being.
Surely the issue we should really be addressing is this: what does our nation really want from its museums? And, flowing from that, how do we ensure that our museums have the resources to meet the nation's needs?
It is my belief that museums house a very substantial part of this country's cultural and intellectual capital. It is widely recognised that the breadth and depth of our museum collections are unparalleled. The nation's museums and galleries are among our most valuable assets and we now seek the imagination and the determination to ensure that their value is fully released.
However, this has to be seen as something of a two-way street. We need to demand more from our museums and they need to start not only matching but exceeding our expectations. We have an equal obligation to ensure that they have sufficient resources to meet those legitimate demands and expectations.
Surely the best way to proceed is far more fully to integrate our museums and galleries into our education system so that they become a truly enhanced tool for learning at all levels. After all, some 33 per cent. of visits to museums are already made by children yet whenever there are cuts it seems to me that the education departments are always the first to be hit. We must be prepared to commit serious resources to our museums as part of the broader commitment that this Government are making towards significantly improved standards in education.

813
Our museums have never been merely a means of visiting the past. From the day they were built they were always intended to fulfil a role in better equipping us for the future. At the time the great South Kensington museums were being constructed, Victorian Britain was engaged in nothing short of a massive experiment in public education, one in which adult education, in the form of access to national and municipal museums and galleries, was viewed as an essential ingredient. Sir Henry Cole, the first director of the V & A, went so far as to say that,
"unless museums and galleries are made subservient to the purpose of education, they quickly dwindle into very sleepy affairs".
I do not for one moment believe that museums should be subservient to anything beyond their clear public purpose, but I do believe that tying the knot generously, and absolutely unambiguously, to this nation's educational purpose is the best possible recipe for guaranteeing their continuing role at the epicentre of a civilised society.
Please do not misunderstand me, my Lords, much very good work is being done, but properly resourced and encouraged, much, much more could be achieved. There is a vital role for museums at every point of this Government's welcome and ambitious plans for technology-based access to learning, at home, at school and at the workplace.
The provision of knowledge and skills for young people and adults cannot be achieved without the help and support of a virile and confident museum and gallery sector. The time is surely overdue for my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to sit down together and thrash out a level of provision that fully accords with the nation's long-term needs and their own frequently stated and entirely generous vision of our nation's future.
With regard to the specific issue of charging, one must recognise that given the sheer diversity of the sector different institutions perceive that they have different needs. The National Gallery is a fundamentally different animal from the Science Museum. What they have in common is that both are superbly run national institutions. The National Gallery is a collection of remarkable paintings whose primary purpose is to give aesthetic pleasure within impeccable surroundings. Its site in the centre of London makes it a welcome and attractive venue for passing trade as well as for those who make the entirely worthwhile effort specifically to visit it. On the other hand, one of the roles of the Science Museum is to help make inanimate objects come to life in the imagination of the viewer. It is a much more capital-intensive institution that has a fundamental relationship with the core syllabus. It is also one which at present feels that it must make at least one proportion of its adult visitors pay.
Of course, there are pressures and problems both between museums and within them. Probably there has always been tension between private research and public education, between perceived elitism and clear social
814
purpose, even between museum staff and museum users but none of this can be allowed to divert us and them from our legitimate expectations or to deflect the state from adequately resourcing the very best of this vast national asset.
It is almost Christmas, so I hope your Lordships will allow me to conclude with the observation that much of the debate, both within and outside this Chamber, very much reminds me of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol. There have been any number of visitations of Marley's ghost reminding us of the joys and dangers of Christmas past, plenty of anecdotes regarding the dangers of Christmas present and even some unpleasant spectres conjuring up the misery of Christmases yet to come. I suggest that neither Marley with his vision of charging as the route to certain damnation nor Scrooge with his belief in extracting the last penny out of every visitor really offers a sustainable and intelligent way forward. In the role of the ever-optimistic Bob Cratchett perhaps I may suggest that the three wise men I mentioned earlier together with my right honourable friend the Prime Minister scratch their collective heads and answer the question I put a few minutes (or was it an hour?) ago. What do we really want from our museums and how can they best he equipped to serve the nation's purpose? To help them I offer a final piece of advice from my own Tiny Tim in the form of a remark made to the director of our quite wonderful museum in Bradford. Recently, on leaving the museum, a child said, "Thanks, Miss. That's the best nothingsworth I've ever had." In the spirit of Christmas, I add, "God bless us, every one."
5.23 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, it is my privilege to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on a first-class maiden speech—a speech as distinguished as his career. I wondered why I had been singled out to pay this tribute. One possible reason may be that I was also in films for about 20 years. However, I made only documentaries, which were not at all in the same league as "Chariots of Fire", "Bugsy Malone", "The Killing Fields" or "Local Hero". Certainly, the noble Lord is the most distinguished film-maker in the country. His appointments as vice-chairman of BAFTA, as a don at the University of Bristol and as a member of the British Screen Advisory Panel merely reflect that excellence. It is hard to find a distinguished film post that he has not held. He will be an asset to the Government in their educational standards taskforce team.
I noted that at the beginning of his speech the noble Lord paid tribute to the staff. Obviously, it was prompted by his knowledge that tonight is the night of the Doorkeepers' Dinner. His speech was admirably concise. We look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.
I, too, must declare an interest. It is also Liverpool, because my wife is a trustee of National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside. My noble friend Lady Hooper has already said that that group of eight museums and galleries was forced to start charging last summer due to the grant in aid decreasing. That is regrettable, but

815
the system of charging is the best possible. You buy one ticket for £3. That admits you to all eight museums as often as you like for a whole year. That should meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
The system has two advantages. First, it encourages repeat visits. You can nip into the Walker for 10 minutes at lunch-time and it will not cost you anything. Records show that over half the visits to date are repeat ones. The second advantage is that the ticket has printed on it the names of all the galleries. Three of them are not well known, even to Liverpudlians; that is, the Sudley, the Lady Lever and the Museum of Liverpool Life. Consequently, attendances have gone up at the last of those in particular.
I must say a word about how attendances are measured. At a free gallery, a magic eye records everything that moves. At a charging gallery admissions are measured by turnstiles. The initial comparison of one system with the other at Liverpool gave a frightening attendance decline of 40 per cent. But, as my noble friend Lady Hooper said, NMGM kept the old magic eye going in two galleries. The result was a slight rise in attendance in the summer, followed by a 6 per cent. fall over the past two months. There is not much difference in admission figures before and after charging using the Liverpool system.
I believe that it is the best, given the diminishing grant in aid, but that does not mean that I back the Secretary of State's paper Review of Access to National Museums and Galleries. It is a dismal document. I take issue with several points in it:
"What is quite clear is that charging is not an issue that can be regarded in isolation".
I beg to differ. I believe that it can. He continues with the obvious but ominous message:
"Whether we like it or not, priorities have to be judged in the light of resources available".
I wonder whether that is a dire warning that the cuts are to be even more substantial in future.
There is to be a new access fund which, inter alia, will try to attract,
"Those Socio Economic Groups which are under represented amongst Museum visitors".
That should surely read "gallery" visitors, because museums have a good social mix already. It is the galleries that are visited mainly by what we call the As, the Bs, the Cls and the C2s. Thus the Walker Gallery, of international repute, has only half the number of visitors of the perhaps more obscure Liverpool Museum. Attracting social classes D and E into galleries such as the Walker via the access fund makes sense, although the fund itself is minute. It is a mere £5 million for the whole country in the first year.
In his paragraph 9, the Secretary of state hints that he may be addressing that most important nonsense of all, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that a charging museum can reclaim VAT while a free museum cannot. I trust that he has the strength of his convictions in his dealings with the Treasury and that he puts that right.
816
There is an especially worrying suggestion in his final section, that museums and galleries should consider,
"The possible case for one day's closure per week".
Well Liverpool can boast, like that famous old London theatre, the Windmill, "We never close". While I deplore the diminishing grant in aid and the new access document, I feel that those in Liverpool are making the best of a bad job.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for initiating this important debate. When the British Museum declared a few weeks ago that after more than two centuries of free admission it might be forced through lack of funds to introduce charging, it triggered an outraged response from the British public. To them charging is an affront to traditional ideals of education and edification, turning a visit to a museum into an entertainment.
The real cause of the present crisis, however, the repeated cuts in the funding of museums and galleries, has conveniently been forgotten. The British Museum, for example, has lost in real terms £7.3 million since 1992, while over the same period the grant in aid to 10 other national museums and galleries is down a staggering £41.6 million in real terms. That ruinous underfunding, a legacy of the previous government, clearly puts pressure on trustees to introduce admission charges.
The Labour Party made it quite clear while in opposition that it opposed admission fees. Tony Blair stated on 3rd February 1997:
"We are concerned about the introduction of admission charges in national museums. These great collections have been paid for, and maintained, by the British people".
He went on:
"We believe that young people, unemployed people and pensioners should not be discouraged from or unable to enjoy our national treasures. We applaud the policies of the National Gallery. the Tate, the British Museum and others in maintaining access without charge".
Mark Fisher, the current Arts Minister, further pledged:
"A Labour Government will move by encouragement and persuasion, setting the target of all the core collections being freely open to the public by the year 2000".
However, some months after attaining power, a different picture has emerged and key words have been redefined. As Alan Borg, director of the V & A, put it:
"The Government appear to have shifted from 'let's keep museums free' to 'let's keep museums which are still free, free'.".
When the Government talk about access they now claim they are talking not just about free entry, if indeed they are talking about it at all, but about increased opening hours, touring exhibitions, outreach programmes, access for the disabled and free entry for the last hour of the day.
These things are indeed worth undertaking, but there is no point in making small increases in access for a few people while at the same time barring access to a huge number of others. However one chooses to disguise it, charging admission fees is the reverse of access.

817
Virtually all recent records show that admission charges to Britain's national museums cause attendance figures to drop dramatically. Moreover, they deter people from visiting museums in their own country, rather than tourists. That is why, for example, only 37 per cent. of visitors to the Louvre in Paris, which charges admission, are French whereas 53 per cent. of visitors to the National Gallery, which has no admission fee, are British.
It is important to stress that museums are not a minority eélitist pastime, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said. Indeed, more people visit museums than attend football matches. Socio-economic studies indicate that of all cultural categories museums are most open to all classes, probably because free entry reduces the barrier to involvement. The last RGSB Omnibus Survey on involvement in the arts in 1991 showed that of those who visited museums and galleries 45 per cent. were working class and 55 per cent. middle class. If charging became general policy visits by lower income families would be the most likely to fall.
Already a vast number of people have been affected. In 1987, the year before charging, some 3 million people visited the Science Museum in London. Nine years on, in 1996, there are only 1.5 million visitors, a drop of 50 per cent. That is hardly surprising. The cost of entry for two adults and two children is £28.30. By contrast, the British Museum, which has no admission charges, enjoyed 4 million visitors during 1987 and 6.8 million in 1996, a rise of 70 per cent.
No introduction of outreach programmes, extended opening hours or other imaginative programmes can possibly hope to fill more than a fraction of that gap. Clearly, access is about entry charges and not the repositioning which the Government—or rather the Treasury—seem to wish to define it as.
In 1996, in Australia, the state-funded National Gallery of Victoria dropped its entrance charge in favour of free admission. The number of visitors rose from 560,000 in the previous year to 1.2 million, a clear example of creating access. Similarly in England, the art galleries and museums of Bournemouth, Ipswich and Eastbourne have all abandoned entrance fees in the past couple of years because of a dramatic fall in attendance. All are now enjoying a recovery in attendance figures.
Last month Mark Fisher told museum directors that they should learn from Marks & Spencer, Tesco and Harvey Nichols how to raise money and earn more per square metre by higher income from restaurants and shops. It is of course right that museums should follow the best business practices, and over the past decade the national museums have worked hard to turn themselves into successful commercial enterprises. However, the money raised by those activities will always be a small percentage of the running costs. Any further steps in that direction and museums become diverted from the real business of running a centre of scholarship.
818
In 1929, after two decades as director of the British Museum, Sir Frederic Kenyon said to a Royal Commission on admission charges:
"The nation has a very large capital invested in the museum, and it is better to look for the return on it from educational advantages offered to the public than from a trivial taking of cash at the turnstiles".
Some 70 years on, that still holds true. As the Prime Minister has said, "Education! Education! Education!" Museums remain an invaluable and enriching source of education. They, and free admission to them, should be cherished.
5.36 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on introducing this Unstarred Question to the House. As noble Lords know, persistence normally wins in this House and all of us from all sides of the House congratulate the noble Earl on asking Question after Question and probing both governments over the past year. I hope that his persistence bears full fruit.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. He clearly has a greater access to the "Three Wise Men" than I or many Members of this House, and I hope that he too will be successful in his persistence in trying to ensure that we get what we require; namely, free admission to museums. I hope also that we shall hear him more often in this House on many other subjects with which he is connected.
It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. His grandfather, as is well known, was known as the "Salamander of the Empire", a gallant fighting soldier. I admired the noble Lord's fighting speech and I hope he will be listened to by the Government Front Bench.
I shall keep my speech to one particular museum, a core museum, and I shall declare an interest. I shall emphasise also the principle of free access to museums. The museum in question is only a few hundred yards from here. It is, of course, the National Portrait Gallery. In March 1856, Lord Stanhope, the historian, polymath and statesman, moved a Motion that there should be a national collection of portraits. The Motion was accepted nem con.
In the 1880s, the Government provided, free of charge, the location where the National Portrait Gallery stands today. Over the past three decades the National Portrait Gallery has been allowed by the trustees to have three quite outstanding curators—Dr. Roy Strong, Dr. John Hayes and currently Dr. Charles Samaurez-Smith. They are scholars; they are curators; and all of them in their different ways have gone out of their way to raise revenue for that outstanding collection of portraits, number one of which is William Shakespeare, donated by a Member of this House, Lord Ellesmere.
My interest, which I declare, is that I visit the National Portrait Gallery every day I am in London and I have made quite a sizeable contribution to the shop. I buy my Christmas presents from it. Finally, I am descended from benefactors who put on record in their

819
wills that they wished to give the works of art that they donated free of charge. They said in their wills that they wished all the people to see those works of art free, without charge in perpetuo. The trustees are now in a difficult position because if the Government withdraw its life-blood—its grant-in-aid—they will probably have to impose a charge. That would be a dreadful state of affairs.
Let us consider the figures. Currently 800,000 people visit the National Portrait Gallery every year and there are 130 servants of the gallery working there, 74 of whom are warders. If the trustees have to impose charges, what will happen? Well, the figure of 800,000 will drop to 400,000 and the revenue in the shop will fall. Moreover, more warders will have to be employed to collect that money. I note with some concern that the Government have said that museums which do not charge will not receive back the VAT that they have paid. That is a mean-minded policy which I suggest would have come better from the previous government rather than this one.
I ask the Minister to consider the situation most carefully before charges are imposed. I have read with interest the review on access to national museums and galleries; indeed, I suspect that I did so before some of the directors. I ask the Minister for the following assurance. Will he give the curators of the museum time to make their plans and formulate their answers before the grant-in-aid is reduced—as reduced I fear it will be? Further, will the Minister listen to the curators, who have already put on paper their views? I draw the noble Lord's attention to the short paper by Dr. Charles Samaurez-Smitt, the director of the National Portrait Gallery. It is lucid, clear and comes down very firmly against his gallery imposing charges, which would reduce by half the numbers attending every year.
The Minister puts in a book of reference the fact that one of his favourite hobbies is cooking; I share that interest. The noble Lord will know, as I do, that in order to prepare a dish you need to have ingredients. However, if you get the ingredients in the wrong proportion, the dish will be spoilt. For the museums, especially the National Portrait Gallery, we need, first, grant-in-aid, as the noble Lord calls it. I refer to grant-in-aid as an investment in culture. Secondly, we need shops, which generate more wealth for the museum. We also need sponsorship. If the noble Lord's Government introduce museum charges for the core museums, I shall refer him to a sentence from Saki, H.H. Munro's Reginald on Besetting Sins:
"The cook was a good cook, as cooks go; and as good cooks go, she went".
5.43 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on introducing today's debate, which is about,
"free … access to public museums and galleries".
To me, the public element of it is the public collection around which our national heritage is based. It could be in large or small museums, but it is all public in the sense that we all have a wish to enjoy it and a duty to
820
preserve such collections for future generations as well as for the present generation. Indeed, we must enable them to enjoy such treasures which, of course, means being open to the public for as long as possible. Therefore, museums need money and lots of it.
I declare an interest with some diffidence among the very eminent speakers who have preceded me in the debate. I spent about five or six years developing the Eurotunnel Exhibition Centre in Folkestone. which was designed to educate people about the Channel Tunnel. It was not a marketing exercise. It was built around a collection and what I believe was the biggest model railway in the world. The costs were high and I experienced many of the problems in making such a project pay, although it was supported by Eurotunnel to some extent.
We decided to charge people for entry because we concluded that if people paid, the experience of a visit would have a value or worth which would not be the case if it were free. That went against all the consultants' reports; but I believe that our decision was proved right in practice because we became the second most popular visitor attraction in Kent, attracting about 300,000 visitors a year. For outside London that is not bad.
We also concentrated largely on education. I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said in his interesting speech. We achieved sometimes a figure of 40 per cent. of visitors on educational visits during term time. As my noble friend so rightly said, that is the key to the matter. But even if museums charge the market rate, as I have found, one will probably cover only the operating costs. We have been given some documentation which indicates that for the big national museums grant aid per visitor can range from £3.75 to £26. No one will pay £26 to enter a museum but they may pay £3, £5 or £7. But none of that will cover renovations, new projects and the general improvements which are required today to encourage people to visit museums.
As my noble friend Lord Puttnam said. education is often the first department to be cut because it never makes money. That is something we must sort out. I have a certain knowledge of the Weald and Downland museum in Sussex which I believe receives about 300,000 visitors a year. That museum operates with more than 100 volunteers and six paid staff. They have recruited volunteers and cut their costs to the bone so that the money they receive from entry fees and other grants can be used to maintain the high level of scholarship that is associated with that museum. However, that is difficult to organise.
Given the need for funds, what should the policy he for these museums? As I have said, they need sufficient funds. It is no good cutting down all the time. Efficiency cuts have been forced upon them over the years and I do not believe that they can cut costs any further. My understanding is that there will not be any additional government money and the other sources of private finance have probably been tapped so far as is possible. Therefore I believe that entry charges are pretty essential. However, they do not obviate the need for

821
government money because, as I have said, entry fees cover only a proportion of the operating costs, and certainly nothing more. I contend that many people, whether tourists or taxpayers, can afford to pay. Even if we argue that taxpayers should get free entry, tourists are not taxpayers in the normal accepted sense of the word, although they may pay VAT on some items. I believe that 60 per cent. of the British Museum's visitors are from overseas and that the figure of overseas visitors to the National Gallery is 47 per cent. I do not see why they should not pay.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, abhors charging for entry to Westminster Abbey and other cathedrals on the basis that some of the visitors may wish to pray. Over the years, I have visited many cathedrals and have been distressed by the small proportion of visitors who pray. The rest of them are going around in herds of 10, 20 or 30 people with rather loud guides. It does not matter whether those visitors are from the UK or overseas, I do not see why they should not help pay for the upkeep of a cathedral which is part of our national heritage.
The key to this matter is that we must provide for those who cannot pay. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi made a few suggestions in that regard whether it is free opening for a few hours a week or special rates for students—students on the Continent get into many museums for free, as I have done in the past—or other facilities such as season tickets and the like. I am not persuaded that free museums will achieve the widest access to the widest range of collections under the present state of government finances. I believe that museums must have the freedom to charge, to increase their overall revenue—that is fundamental—with sufficient provisos that I and other noble Lords have described to enable those who cannot afford to pay—especially students and others who study—to get in free or at reduced rates. It should not be the excuse for the Government to cut further funding. But alongside the ability to charge, museums must have some freedom to do so on the basis of market pricing, developing shops and other marketing factors which increase revenue.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, has asked the Question today. I also feel privileged to have been present to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. I hope that he will find many more occasions to share with us his ideas, wisdom and experience.
If there were such a thing as free access to our wonderful museums—it is a big "if'—1 would find myself, I suspect, fighting with other speakers today to be at the head of the line. For me the first reason would be personal interest. The second might be word of mouth—the recommendation from a friend or a colleague. The third and most important reason would be hoped-for value for money. I do not think anyone has touched on whether we have value for money from our museums. I would look for an enlightening experience or a delightful one. I believe that I share that view with a range of people within and outside this Chamber. I refer to the citizen who pays through his taxes, national
822
or local, or the foreign visitor who pays through VAT and other indirect taxes. I do not believe that he would be put off by paying because it is the custom in many countries to pay for access not only to national collections but to more modest museums.
Access may be perceived to be free at the box office or the turnstile. But if that perception holds good, it simply means, as I implied earlier, that I paid my admission through a cheque to the Inland Revenue or to the local district council.
Free admission is a perception. It is no more than that. So what other circumstances might persuade me to scramble or to scrabble to the head of the queue which I have already mentioned? There is the sponsor. No one has touched on sponsorship. I made several visits to the Carl Larsson exhibition at the V & A. One has to pay tribute to, among others, IKEA and Scandinavian Airlines for underpinning that. Do we call it business sponsorship of the arts? Perhaps when replying the Minister can remind me whether I am right in thinking that it is an element thereof.
Last week the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, led a debate on the international art market. One might have expected it to be a debate about our premier league players, the points on the star on the Christmas tree, if I may be seasonal—the Christie's and the Sotheby's. However, as several noble Lords who spoke today and who took part in that debate will recall, the debate went much wider. It went to the root of the Christmas tree. My noble friend Lady Rawlings and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will recall that the debate did not concern just the star players. The star players were the tip of the iceberg, if I may use that allusion. Noble Lords spoke of the fact that lower level dealers and our museums made an important contribution to the preservation of Britain's status as a top player in the international art market.
Tourism also cropped up in the debate. Here I should declare an interest. In the tourism context—it has been touched on by other speakers today—I believe that foreign visitors will be happy to pay admission prices, because that is the usage and a custom in their own countries, as long as the admission they pay leads to a good value for money experience. I also believe that British visitors would be happy to pay admission charges for the same reason. That view is supported by research undertaken by the Museums and Galleries Commission, which found that only some 4 per cent. of potential visitors to museums are put off by admission charges.
As I said, foreign visitors are accustomed to paying. I hope that many will continue to come to this country to enjoy our historic houses—for which, after all, we all pay, so far as I can remember. What is an historic house? It is a form of museum under private enterprise, for whatever reason. If the law of the land lets each attraction, each museum, determine for itself whether to impose charges, then we have got matters more than half way right. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not yield to pressure which might lead us to get things wrong.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I trespass upon your Lordships' time in the gap for one moment only, simply to have the opportunity to add my voice to those of your Lordships who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on a remarkable maiden speech. I am grateful to him, too, because I agreed so profoundly with his remarks that it saved me from having to make a speech and your Lordships having to listen to it. I hope that we shall hear the noble Lord very often in this Chamber. I say that not because it is what one is supposed to say to a maiden speaker but because the noble Lord's common sense is so acute and his cultural sympathies so wide that we need him in your Lordships' debates.
5.56 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for introducing this debate. I, too, wish briefly to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, on his remarkable maiden speech. I worked with the noble Lord in a previous incarnation, when I was with the Red Cross and he made that outstanding and very moving film, "The Killing Fields". We look forward to hearing from him frequently.
This has been another fascinating and constructive debate. Sadly, while the Government's vacillation over museum charges has been fascinating, I fear that it has not been constructive. Their record on museum charges conforms to the pattern of Labour policy towards the arts, and indeed Labour policy in general. Once again, it shows that the Government are happy to advocate popular policies but not to accept the consequences of introducing them; prepared to ignore the "arm's length" principle when it suits them and to hide behind it when it is convenient to do so; happy to take a stand on a point of principle but liable to abandon their principles in response to special pleading. It also proves that, whatever the Ministers from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport may say, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who makes the decisions.
When in Opposition, Labour raised expectations by repeatedly stating their commitment to the principle of free access to the nation's national collections. As the Minister for the Arts in another place said:
"the Labour Party wishes to see access to all the core collections of our great national museums returned to the state of being free by the end of the century".
But once they were in government, Labour were faced with putting their principles into practice or performing a U-turn. Characteristically they announced a review. Since the summer, the Government have steadily retreated from their commitment to free admission to the national collections, placing more and more emphasis on statements on the role of trustees in deciding whether, and when, to charge for admission.
But unwilling to be seen to be dropping their commitment to free access, the Government announced two weeks ago that they had extended the review of free admission, on which they were due to report this month. The review is now scheduled to last into next summer.
824
I now turn briefly to the British Museum. The Secretary of State recently applauded the decision of the trustees of the British Museum not to introduce admission charges. However, the Government announced this afternoon that they are holding in reserve £1 million for 1998-99. What does that "holding in reserve" actually mean? Perhaps the Minister will tell the House when he replies.
A report in the Sunday Telegraph of 7th December stated that the British Museum was indeed to receive a subsidy in the form of tax breaks and a relaxation in the rules on VAT to enable it to avoid the introduction of charges. I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who asked the Government to examine more creative tax incentives to help museums and galleries. The British Museum intimated that it might have to introduce charges unless the Government provided more money to enable it to avoid admission charges. Have the Government now done this?
The Government are getting into another muddle over admission charges to the Millennium Dome. Here, the cost of the project is so large that the admission charge is likely to be as much as £20, even if the ambitious target of 12 million visitors is reached. This target might not seem so remote were it at all clear what the exhibition will contain. Might I suggest to the Government that they consider the communications age as the theme for the dome? The century we are entering will be dominated by communications and the media. New technology will transform the way we live in the years ahead and particularly the way in which we learn and work. What could be a more appropriate way of marking our entrance to this era than by dedicating the exhibition to the technology that will shape the new century—a dome experience for the new century.
The new allocation figures given by the Government today in another place are appalling. They are down another £3.5 million, giving meagre amounts to our national collections.
What is not acceptable is for politicians to generate huge expectations that if elected to office they will provide the money to ensure that museums and galleries remain free and then to go back on those promises once in office. Luckily the Government are still committed to a free library service. Museums and galleries are the visual libraries of the country, so if libraries are free, so should museums be.
6.1 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on his timing in initiating the debate today. In addition, I congratulate him on having attracted to his debate the remarkable maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Puttnam, which was a lesson to all of us in what can be the contribution to the House of those who really understand and dominate their subject.
I am sorry to say that I am less congratulatory about the content and tone of the noble Earl's speech. I expect robust political interventions from the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that is what she is paid for—in heaven, she is paid in heaven. She certainly lived up to

825
expectation and deserved the congratulations of her colleagues. But to speak, as the noble Earl did, about turning culture into business, about dominant consumerism, and turning us all into tourists, about consumer fascism, turning visitors into customers, informing us that the Government are patronisingly telling us what our needs are and dictatorial proclamations, I venture to suggest is not the way in which a debate of this kind ought to be conducted, nor, if I listened properly to the other contributions, has it been conducted in that way. We need to have rather more tolerance of each other, although I pay a continued tribute to the sincerity and dedication of the noble Earl.
He and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and others have campaigned hard in favour of free admission to public museums and galleries. On that issue, I must make the Government's position clear straight away. This is a matter of fact, not of policy. It is for the trustees of each museum to decide what measures should be adopted to promote access to their museums within available resources. Our own preference has been made evident by the pleasure we have expressed at the decision of the trustees of the British Museum to keep admission free at this time. It has been made evident by the quotation which the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, made from the present Prime Minister before the election. But for some museums the wider access will be free admission, others will choose to promote access in other ways. That is up to them. Our task in government is to support both approaches, either approach according to which museum puts it forward.
We are not forcing any particular model of charging or not charging and shall not be doing so at the end of our review. That is entirely consistent with the policy we set out in Create the Future when we said,
"We would like to see institutions do all they can to balance the books while maximising access".
If we were to believe the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and one or two other speakers, that would be the end of the debate. I could sit down and your Lordships would be grateful; there would be nothing more to be said. The noble Earl said that free access is the sine qua non well known for all other considerations of access. The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said that access is really about entry charges. I do not agree. Widening access is a more complicated matter and deserves further consideration.
For one thing, there is no hard and fast divide between charging and not charging. It is not a simple matter of saying, "You pay to come in at all times, for all people" or "You don't pay at all times, for all people". Some museums which charge have free days; some have substantial concessions for certain kinds of people. For example, I understand that 45 per cent. of the visitors to the V & A do not pay. I have just returned from New York where the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a small exhibit, has a suggested fee of eight dollars. People are given a little metal ticket if they buy it and then have to pass two very fierce people who allow them in whether or not they possess the little badge. That is another possibility which museums could consider.
826
All of those systems ought, in all seriousness, to be considered by museums when they are thinking about charging or not charging. Another example of charging which appears to work is Merseyside, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. I am not sure about the figures and whether the magic eye does not also count the cat and those hesitating in front of it. I am not convinced therefore that numbers have either held up or declined. Nevertheless, it is clear that public reaction to a low cost multi-museum/gallery pass is favourable and it should not be ruled out on ideological grounds.
The review has shown in the research carried out so far by the Museums and Galleries Commission that admission charges are only one issue to be addressed in formulating a successful access policy. That is why I suggest, with due respect to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, that the topic should not be about free access to public museums and galleries but about how to widen access.
Barriers to access do not simply involve money. They involve the cost of travelling to museums—we know that from research; the shortage of time to visit museums; museums being seen as elitist or irrelevant; and problems of physical access for the disabled. Above all, access should not simply be to the exhibition space, but to the vast reserve collections which many museums and galleries have which are not accessible to anybody but could be if money was made available to allow it. That is what the Tate Gallery will be doing in Bankside. That is why we are continuing the review. I do not apologise for that. We are issuing a draft code of practice, but we are looking for people to improve on that code of practice and we are looking for further wisdom from the museums and galleries world to help us to find the best solution that we can when we conclude the review.
We have also announced that the trustees of the Heritage Lottery Fund have decided to create a new museums and galleries access fund, using their new powers under the National Heritage Act 1997. That will have the principal purpose of encouraging national and leading regional museums and galleries in the provision of a new generation of major touring exhibition initiatives—again an aspect of widening access which could have been dealt with beneficially in this debate. Apart from taking national collections out into the regions, it will also encourage the more general circulation of the more important collections to be found in our regional museums. This is an important step for making our great collections more accessible to people for whom the cost of travel to London or another major regional centre can be a significant barrier.
The new access fund will also cover other means of supporting access, such as funding transport costs in museums, attracting people who are at the moment under-represented among museum visitors, using information technology to enhance traditional exhibitions and other audience development approaches which will make our national and regional museums

827
more accessible to more people. Five million pounds will be available for museums and galleries across the UK in the first year and, subject to the experience of the first year, the Heritage Lottery Fund envisages extending the fund to encompass other aspects of the heritage.
A number of noble Lords have spoken about the position of non-charging museums under current VAT rules. We have been discussing this matter very intensively with Treasury colleagues. There is no possibility of a general concession to non-charging museums. But it appears that quite a number of museums and galleries have been underestimating the part of their turnover which could benefit from changes in the VAT regime; for example, their trading, catering and other retail activities. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has said that Customs and Excise will be prepared to advise in individual cases as to the application of the rules. There could be a significant degree of underclaiming. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has given us very serious legal wisdom on the sixth directive on value added tax. I am sure that Ministers will take what he has said very seriously. I shall certainly report back his words.
I can also confirm that the public expenditure announcements of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been made today in the other place by means of a written parliamentary answer. The provision for the museums and galleries sector has been maintained in cash terms for the 1998-99 financial year, with allocations to individual institutions unchanged from those announced in the 1997 settlement. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, and the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, had to disappear in the course of the afternoon to see the Secretary of State. It shows that we continue to be committed to the museums and galleries sector. In addition, £25,000 has been found for Museums Week next year to enable the organisers to undertake research into the impact this promotional week has on visitor behaviour.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about the £1 million being held in reserve for the British Museum. The purpose of this provision is to help the trustees of the British Museum to avoid irrevocable decisions on the introduction of admission charges pending the outcome of the Government's comprehensive spending review. Before this reserve can be accessed, the British Museum will have to demonstrate its need for special provision, having looked at other sources of income. Payment of any advance grant would be subject to the following conditions: that the museum prepares an action plan, subject to approval by the department, for generating more income to supplement its grant-in-aid, for achieving significant efficiency savings and for improvement in the management of the museum's finances; that the museum succeeds in eliminating the balance of its projected deficit for the financial year 1998-99; and that the trustees of the British Museum
828
maintain free entry throughout 1998. Similarly, £300,000 is being held in reserve for 1998-99 for the Tate Gallery to help it maintain free entry. pending the outcome of the comprehensive spending reviews.
It has been a wider debate than the terms of the Question raised by the noble Earl. It has been the better for that. It has given the Government an opportunity to set out their stall on the issue of widening access to galleries and museums. And for that I am grateful.

Adjournment of the House
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have performed many duties since taking up the office of Government Chief Whip in May this year. Some of those duties have been onerous, some difficult and some downright surprising. Much of the work of the Chief Whip brings the holder of that office great pleasure and none of my duties is more pleasurable than to move the adjournment for the Christmas Recess and a very well-deserved break for your Lordships and all the staff.
Decisions on Recesses are, as I discovered on taking office, only a part of the multifarious work of the usual channels in the Lords. I am delighted to have this opportunity to say a very heartfelt thank you to my opposite numbers, the noble Lords, Lords Strathclyde and Lord Harris of Greenwich, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the Convenor, for what they have done to ensure that the usual channels have, since the election, continued to function in a most pleasant and efficient manner.
One of the great traditions of your Lordships' House is that we proceed by agreement. The usual channels are the oil of that process. They are there to ensure that the work of the House runs relatively smoothly. By custom the Government Chief Whip, in moving the adjournment for the Christmas Recess, thanks all the staff of the House for all the work that they do to ensure that everything runs well.
By custom, too, we do not single out individuals or departments for particular mention. All Members of your Lordships' House have dealings with many members of staff. It would be invidious to single out particular groups for special mention. However, I am sure that the whole House will agree that a well-deserved tribute should be paid to everyone who has ensured that the changeover of government in May has not in any way been reflected in disruption in the workings of your Lordships' House. I was immensely impressed by the smooth efficiency of that changeover and the very evident willingness of every member of staff to contribute to that smoothness and efficiency.
On this occasion I should like to break the custom and make reference to an individual member of staff, Ray Ware of Hansard. Ray joined the Lords in 1988 after 30 years in the Metropolitan Police. He was a policeman in the Palace of Westminster for 26 years and spent the last 18 of those years behind the Speaker's Chair. After two years in the Commons and the Clerks'

829
Department he was appointed here. He came to us with outstanding references from his colleagues at the other end. According to the Commons Clerks, he had a reputation for being a fount of knowledge on the workings of the House and unfailingly knew exactly what was going to happen each day—unlike the Government Chief Whip!
Ray brought those talents and skills to bear on his work in this House. I am sure that the whole House will join with me in wishing him a long and happy retirement when he leaves the Lords today.
I hope that all Members of your Lordships' House and the staff enjoy a very well-deserved Christmas break and return to the House in the New Year ready for the remainder of this Session. I can say, as the Government Chief Whip and speaking in accord with all my predecessors, that the rest of the Session is bound to be both rigorous and demanding. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
Moved, That the House do now adjourn.—(Lord Carter)
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I take the opportunity of joining the Opposition to the words which have just been spoken by the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip. In doing so, I voice my personal appreciation of the way in which he has carried out his business with me as a member of the usual channels.
As everybody knows, it has been a most interesting year. I started at the beginning of this year on the other side of the Table and I finished it off on the Opposition side of the Table. I doubt very much whether positions will be reversed in 12 months' time, but I am hopeful that in due course the natural order of things will reassert itself.
In joining the noble Lord in wishing all those who work in your Lordships' House a very happy Christmas and a good New Year, 1, too, would like to refer to two important things that have happened this year. The first is, of course, the change in government and the seamless transition that took place with so much work being done by so many people above what was normally required. Secondly, there has been the very substantial influx of new Members of your Lordships' House. That has not only taken up a great deal of time in the Chamber itself, but it has also taken up the time of the Refreshment Department, which has to cater for lunches and so forth.
It would have been wrong not to have referred to those who have worked extremely hard during the course not only of the past few months since 1st May, but also for the past 12 months, in making sure that the Members of your Lordships' House are cared for as efficiently and effectively as possible. We owe all those who work in this House an enormous debt of gratitude. This is a most appropriate time to be able to thank them for all their work and to wish them a very happy Christmas indeed.
6.20 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, it is my happy duty once again on behalf of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich—I have now done this for six years—to echo the sentiments expressed by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. I, too, would like to break with tradition—I have broken with tradition now for six years running—and I know that it is invidious to single out one group of staff or an individual, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that this has been an unusual year and I should like, while recognising the unfailing courtesy and efficiency of all members of staff, this year particularly to thank Mr. Cowell—mainly because he has been responsible for putting up a sign to reserve a motorcycle space for me on several occasions! Whenever we have wanted a doorhandle replaced, a light resited or a bookcase carried, Mr. Cowell and his team have unfailingly been present to help as soon as possible. This year, with all the changes in offices resulting from the change of government, he has done an amazing job. That is why I should like to single him out this year.
Having said that, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich and all my colleagues on these Benches, I join the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Strathclyde, in wishing everybody—all Members of this House and all members of staff—a very happy Christmas and a very good New Year.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, on behalf of our Convener and all Members of the Cross-Benches, I should like warmly to endorse the eloquent tributes and expressions of appreciation that have been paid by the Whips. In his maiden speech earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, made a moving reference to the friendliness that he has encountered since arriving here—a refrain that I have heard before from new entrants to our House. On this occasion, that underlines the importance of the contribution that the friendliness of all those who support us makes to the unique character of this House.
There are 23 pages in the telephone directory of the House devoted to the different departments over which Black Rod and others preside. As has been said, it would be entirely invidious to do more than make a personal reference to one or two, but I should like to thank our Doorkeepers, who at this season have braved the icy blasts of the last few days, always cheerful, always helpful and always good natured.
We are sorry to lose Mr. Ware after his long period here—an innings of 37 years. We are also sorry to lose Mr. Hunter, who joined the staff of this House at about the same time as I did—about 20 years ago. We extend to both of them all good wishes for their retirement.
To all my colleagues in this House and on the staff, on behalf of these Benches I extend all good wishes for a very happy Christmas and a New Year which, despite the forebodings for next Summer, I hope will be a very good one.
6.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: My Lords, I had not expected to be here at this time, but it gives me the privilege and opportunity of associating the Bishops with all that has been said in the past few minutes. We are necessarily rather more intermittent in our attendance than most of your Lordships. But for that very reason we appreciate all the more the courtesy and unfailing help of all members of staff. I join fully in the tributes that have been expressed. I have no direct experience of the operation of the usual channels but as an observer the arrangement seems to work very well
832
and happily. In the absence of my colleagues, I join in wishing all noble Lords a happy Christmas Recess and a happy new year.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Brougham and Vaux): My Lords, in moving that the House do now adjourn perhaps I may also break a tradition. On behalf of the Chairman and all his Deputies, I wish all Members of the House and members of staff a very happy Christmas.
House adjourned for the Christmas Recess at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock until Monday, 12th January next.

  Zambian Constitution: Restrictive Provision
  Zambian Constitution: Restrictive Provision
  Disability Benefits: Lifetime Awards
  Disability Benefits: Lifetime Awards
  SERPS
  SERPS
  Public Health Risks Policies
  Public Health Risks Policies
  Fluoridation of Water
  Fluoridation of Water
  Committee on Toxicity and Vitamin B6
  Committee on Toxicity and Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Consumers' Association: Funding
  Consumers' Association: Funding
  Smoking-related Disease: Treatment Costs
  Smoking-related Disease: Treatment Costs
  Smoking-related Disease: Comparative Treatment Costs
  Smoking-related Disease: Comparative Treatment Costs
  Community Protection Orders: Response to Consultation
  Community Protection Orders: Response to Consultation
  British Board of Film Classification: President
  British Board of Film Classification: President
  Parliamentary Constituency Reviews
  Parliamentary Constituency Reviews
  Enemy Property in the Second World War: Policy Research Project
  Enemy Property in the Second World War: Policy Research Project
  Trade in Financial Services: WTO Negotiations
  Trade in Financial Services: WTO Negotiations
  Lord Chancellor's Residence: Refurbishment
  Lord Chancellor's Residence: Refurbishment
  Households: Projected Growth
  Households: Projected Growth
  Hammersmith Bridge
  Hammersmith Bridge
  Asylum Seekers: Accommodation
  Asylum Seekers: Accommodation
  Lead Shot: Use over Wetlands
  Lead Shot: Use over Wetlands
  Environment Council, 16 December
  Environment Council, 16 December
  Driving Licences: Holders' Photographs
  Driving Licences: Holders' Photographs
  Construction Contracts
  Construction Contracts
  Sustainable Development: Government Panel's Report
  Sustainable Development: Government Panel's Report