Sitting of 29 October 1999

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

  Broadcasting
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  9.33 am
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Broadcasting is close to the hearts of many Members on both sides of the House because it is of enormous importance to our constituents. I am pleased to initiate this debate as broadcasting reaches yet another important milestone, perhaps the most significant for society in the longer term.
  The debate is particularly timely. One year on from the start of digital satellite and digital terrestrial services, with cable operators beginning to roll out their digital services, and just two weeks since new interactive services began, the digital revolution could be said fully to have arrived. We are beginning to see the strengths of the new technology not only in providing more choice and diversity of entertainment for viewers, but in adding to traditional broadcast services new interactive services, connections to the internet and, more generally, an easy introduction to other forms of electronic communication, which Government and industry are increasingly adopting to conduct business. The latest figures show that 1.8 million people have signed up to digital television in this country and it is growing daily.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when he says 1.8 million people have signed up to digital television, that means that they have signed contracts with commercial providers of digital television?
  Mr. Smith: That is correct. Those people have signed contracts either with ONdigital, or with digital satellite through Sky. Over the past couple of weeks, they may have signed up for digital cable services as well.
  In the excitement that has been generated by the digital visions of the broadcasting industry, we must not lose sight of the ordinary viewer's needs and of the importance of ensuring that all sections of society have access to the new services. Several issues need to be resolved, and new ways forward need to be debated to ensure that we get it right. I intend to provide as clear a policy and legislative framework as possible, which will enable broadcasters to plan with confidence and, at the same time, ensure that consumers' best interests are furthered and protected. Before we take final decisions, for example, on the Davies report on the future funding of the BBC, it is important for us all to listen to what Members on both sides of the
  1208
  House, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, which is so ably chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and the world outside have to say.
  I raised several important issues when I addressed last month's Royal Television Society conference in Cambridge. I hope that hon. Members will use the opportunity to debate fully many of the key issues and their other concerns.
  At the conference, my aim was to look forward and to promote the future of digital broadcasting, but, at the same time, to reassure the public about the safeguards that should be put in place. I wanted to set out the Government's thinking on the time scale of the switch-over from analogue to digital broadcasting as soon as possible because it is a key issue for broadcasters and for the Government, and of immediate concern to viewers.
  Viewers need to be fully informed of the advantages and opportunities of the new technology. Those who want to continue simply to receive free-to-air channels need to be effectively protected. I have set two crucial tests that must be met before the analogue signal is fully switched to digital: a test of availability and a test of affordability.
  We need to ensure that, at the very least, everyone who currently receives free-to-air analogue channels—99.4 per cent. of the United Kingdom population—is able to switch over and to continue to do so digitally. The digital signal must be receivable by as many people as currently receive the analogue signal.
  Mr. Norman Baker: I am grateful for that point, but does the Secretary of State accept that the 99.4 per cent. mark that he has set means that 150,000 households will not be able to receive digital television? Should not the opportunity of digital television be taken to ensure that households that cannot receive analogue television are able to receive digital television?
  Mr. Smith: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's point. He will have noticed the crucial phrase "at the very least". I hope that we can aim for absolutely universal coverage, which would, of course, be better than is achieved under the analogue system. Achieving that level of coverage will not be easy. Over the next two years, one of the main tasks will be to establish the best technological means for doing so. It may not be the case that all the service is delivered to all people by digital terrestrial means. We may need to use other technical means to reach the entire population.
  I welcome the work being undertaken by the Radiocommunications Agency, and the establishment by the Independent Television Commission, the BBC, NTL and Crown Castle Transmissions of an advisory board to develop further the frequency plan for digital terrestrial television and the use of cable, satellite and new transmission technologies.
  Consumers must not face unacceptable costs when switching to digital services. "Affordable" must mean that prices are within the range of people on low and fixed incomes, including pensioners. It is also essential that those who want to watch only the free-to-air channels should be able to do so without heavy costs. The level of take-up of digital equipment will be a key measure of progress. I want to ensure that at least 95 per cent. of consumers have achieved access to digital before the switch-over.

  1209
  We also need to ensure that it is easy for consumers to switch between different platforms and providers. The three regulators—the ITC, Oftel and the Office of Fair Trading—are taking forward my request that they advise the Government on options for ensuring that the digital television market does not develop in a way that inhibits competition or sets unnecessary barriers to access to new services. The aim has to be that the viewer can make a ready and easy choice between terrestrial, satellite and cable, and does not have to invest in a tower block of set-top boxes to do so. We want to encourage the development of affordable equipment that facilitates open access as far as possible.
  The full switch-over to digital transmission will not happen until the two key tests of affordability and availability are met. That could start to happen as early as 2006 and could be completed by 2010. With the help of the industry, that time scale can be achieved. However, I emphasise that the tests, not the target dates, are paramount. We shall need to make regular checks to measure progress against the two key tests and to check our assumptions against what is happening in the marketplace. I intend to do that through a series of two-yearly reviews, beginning with a formal consultation of the BBC, the ITC, the industry and consumer groups before the end of 2001. The reviews will enable us to take any necessary action to accelerate take-up levels.
  It is particularly important to have an independent view from consumers. I am in the process of setting up a viewers' panel, which will assess the evidence provided by industry, broadcasters and the Government at each review stage and will report on the matters that are causing most concern to the public. My intention is that representatives of consumer organisations and pensioners will feed their views directly through the panel.
  For switch-over to happen, we need the confidence and support of consumers. It is clear from speaking to consumer organisations and constituents, and from letters that we have received from hon. Members and from the public, that there is considerable confusion among viewers about what digital means and about what services and equipment are available to them. No one is explaining what digital television as a whole has to offer. There is robust commercial competition between companies offering different digital packages, but no one is explaining to the public what digital means. I have invited the major broadcasters, manufacturers and retailers to meet me on 11 November to discuss ways of giving consumers clear, general messages about what digital has to offer, reassuring us about the timetable for switch-over and giving information about the tests that will have to be met.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said about getting together with the industry and other interested parties. There is a need to inform the public about what is available.
  The 95 per cent. threshold is potentially a crude measurement. Many households have more than one television set. Does the threshold mean that 95 per cent. of households should have digital television? If so, what
  1210
  happens to all the television sets that are not accessing digital technology? Will teenagers across the country find that their bedroom television suddenly goes blank?
  Mr. Smith: We do not want to deprive teenagers around the country of access to television in their bedroom. During the next seven to 10 years, the price of set-top boxes and integrated television sets will undoubtedly tumble. That always happens with the development of such technology. A second-hand market in set-top boxes will also develop as people purchase integrated sets and their old sets begin to wear out. The NERA report last year showed that the turnover time for an average television set is about seven years. As people buy integrated sets, they will hand on their set-top boxes to children's bedroom televisions.
  The threshold is a relatively crude measurement. It cannot take account of every second or third set that people have. However, it is a useful broad measure of our progress on the tests of availability and affordability, and it has been broadly welcomed following the Royal Television Society speech.
  Mr. Baker: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way again. I should like to push him on the 95 per cent. figure, which seems to be set a little low. It will mean that 1.2 million households will have their televisions rendered obsolete overnight. Those who have not invested in digital television may well be the poorer members of society. What does the Secretary of State have to say about those who do not have the means to invest in a new television and will have their old set rendered obsolete?
  Mr. Smith: We shall have a more precise time scale well in advance of switch-over and as we approach that moment, it will be in the interests of the television broadcasting industry to ensure that the final 5 per cent. are helped directly to make the switch-over. We do not want a substantial segment of the population to be deprived of access to television.
  It is important that all sections of society should have access to the current free-to-air services. In particular, people with disabilities could benefit from the new and sophisticated services that digital television offers. There is too often an assumption that digital television is of interest only to those who want a greater choice of programmes. It brings many other advantages. For example, it can ensure better signing services for deaf people. Through the links with interactivity, it can enable the development of home delivery services for housebound people. It can help to provide community information and welfare advice for people who face disadvantage and difficulty.
  I want to encourage viewers to take up and enjoy new additional services, including basic internet access, which will also become possible with the combination of digital television and telephony. Beyond that, we want digital television services to achieve much more. We want to broaden access to our rich and varied cultural heritage, to the arts and to sporting events. We want everyone to enjoy opportunities to further their education. Television, with its almost universal access, is an excellent way to begin to achieve those aims, and digital technology opens up the prospect of dedicated community education and other learning channels, backed up with interactive services.

  1211
  Nor should we lose sight of the role of radio services in the digital era. Radio was the first medium to enter the digital arena. The BBC has broadcast digital radio services since 1995 and now has a reach extending over 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom. The BBC offers Radio 1, Radio 2, Radio 3, Radio 4 and Radio 5 Live, and is developing a range of new services. They are soon to be joined by the first national commercial radio service, Digital 1 which is due to launch in November, followed soon by the first local and commercial digital radio services.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Although these are exciting developments, does the Minister accept that they do not add greatly to the difference in output of the existing radio network? There is an opportunity to provide greater variety, including religious output. Is it right that religious output should be excluded from this increase in choice?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Broadcasting Act 1990 disqualifies groups whose objectives are wholly or mainly of a religious nature from holding a terrestrial national radio licence issued by the Radio Authority. That disqualification does not extend to local, satellite or cable radio licences where the authority is permitted to license religious bodies, subject of course to compliance with its guidelines. There are two such satellite licences—UCB Europe and Cross Rhythms—and Premier Radio has a terrestrial radio licence in London. There has been considerable pressure from United Christian Broadcasters and others to change the system. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has taken a very keen interest in these matters and has had detailed meetings with UCB to see whether progress can be made. It is difficult to make progress at present because we are still at a relatively early stage in the development of digital radio, but we want to continue our close dialogue with UCB and others about the possibilities that may arise. My hon. Friend may have more to say about that later.
  Digital radio can offer an increased number of programmes and, importantly, the potential to deliver a range of data services via the radio. I recognise the investment and work that the industry will have to put in to develop and promote digital radio. I suspect that it will be a much slower process than the development of digital television, but I am sure that, over time, consumers will embrace this new technology.
  I am sure, however, that a major concern to consumers, in addition to the new services that will be available to them, will be whether they will continue to enjoy high-quality services. We must remember that people are not interested in watching delivery platforms; they want to watch programmes. Programmes are important and ultimately will drive any particular change.
  All broadcasters will need to produce quality digital content to attract customers and there is a strong role for public service broadcasters—particularly the BBC, ITV, and Channels 4, 5 and S4C—in providing a diversity of viewpoints and acting as a quality benchmark.
  The BBC has a particular duty in this respect. The primary message that the House should send the BBC is one that I am sure all right hon. and hon. Members will endorse. It is that the future role of the BBC, which
  1212
  will be even more important in the multi-channel age, will be to provide a quality benchmark against which all other broadcasting has to be measured. The BBC should be chasing quality rather than ratings.
  In that respect, I disagree passionately with the speech that Richard Eyre from ITV made in his McTaggart lecture earlier this year. He spoke about the death of public broadcasting and tried to redefine public service broadcasting as public interest broadcasting. In particular, he said that, nowadays, the BBC should not be in the business of aiming just a little above people's heads—just beyond their immediate horizons, challenging them to reach up to something which they had not hitherto known was of interest to them. I strongly disagree. I believe—not for 100 per cent. of its programming, but for some of what it does—that the BBC should seek to stretch people and challenge them to do something that is beyond their immediate horizons; I very much hope that it will continue to do that.
  Let me make one point about content, which relates to the ITV environment since the changed timing of the "News at Ten". As the House will know, when the proposal was made, I expressed a personal view—it is not a matter on which the Government could or should take a view—that I was disturbed by the potential consequences of the move. The change was approved by the Independent Television Commission, but it is worth noting that approval was given on several strong conditions. First, there should be no diminution in the funding or the range and quality of national and international news on ITV; secondly, ITV would schedule a regular headline service in the nearest break to 10 pm on weekday evenings; thirdly, the commission expected ITV's commitment to public service values to be undiminished and for the more diverse range of programmes proposed between 9 pm to 11 pm actually to be delivered; and fourthly, ITV would schedule an agreed quantity of 30-minute slots for high-quality regional programmes in or just outside peak time on weekdays throughout the year. Those were the conditions that the ITC set in agreeing to the shift of "News at Ten". It indicated that it would review the changes after 12 months.
  The chairman of the commission recently expressed concern at the decline in viewing and ratings figures for ITV regional programmes and made it clear to ITV that the trend needed to be reversed before the formal review next spring. I very much hope that, when the ITC reviews the position at ITV since the shift of "News at Ten", it will look carefully at the commitments that were given and the conditions that were laid down at the time, and will be prepared to be robust about any analysis of whether those conditions and commitments are being met.
  Protecting quality was one reason why I asked the independent review panel, chaired by Gavyn Davies, to focus specifically on ways in which the BBC's role could be enhanced. The panel put a great deal of time and effort into producing a measured and thoughtful basis for public consultation. I am grateful to Gavyn Davies and his committee for the work and the imagination that they put into the report, which was published at the start of August. The closing date for consultation is Monday, and we have received more than 1,000 responses, with more coming in as I speak.

  1213
  I do not need to tell hon. Members how important the issues covered in the report are for the general public, as many of those responses came via constituency Members of Parliament. I have indicated that we aim to reach decisions on the Davies recommendations around the end of the year when we have had an opportunity to consider all the responses fully. Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to give a Government view today. Our minds are genuinely open, and I want to take account of what the industry, the Select Committee and hon. Members today—as well as the general public—have to say.
  One of the issues that needs the most careful consideration is the extent to which the BBC can help itself through efficiency savings, improved licence fee collection, more effective commercial exploitation of its assets and a transfer of resources out of bureaucracy and into programme-making. This is why I have adopted one of the recommendations of the Davies committee; I will shortly announce the appointment of consultants to carry out a rigorous and wide-ranging study of the BBC's financial projections, which will enable us to reach a view on the appropriate level of funding for the BBC up to 2006.
  The consultants will, therefore, review the BBC's evidence to the Davies panel, taking account of the latest information available, the panel's recommendations relating to BBC funding and those areas that the panel was unable to assess in detail. The consultants will also review the BBC's assessment of the costs of its future service plans over and above maintaining existing services. I will publish a summary of the consultants' findings when I announce the Government's decision on the Davies recommendations.
  I felt that it was extremely important for us to have some objective, non-partisan analysis of the detailed figures of the BBC before reaching final conclusions on the Davies report. The work of the Davies panel, the public consultation and the follow-up consultancy exercise are vital to the UK broadcasting ecology of which we are all so proud.
  Because the profusion of the multi-channel digital future will not render public service broadcasting unnecessary, there may be reasons for reaffirming—and, to some extent, reinventing—public service broadcasting, but it will remain highly relevant. As our principal public service broadcaster, the BBC should continue to set the benchmark for the industry as a whole. We do not want the main result of digital abundance to be a trimming of expenditure and quality. We do not want more to mean worse.
  There must still be a place for the new, the unexpected and the original, and for the unashamedly educational. Viewers expect to be able to choose difficult, but rewarding, new and stimulating programming from time to time, as well as the tried and tested. Public service broadcasters will have an important role to play in the digital future, as trusted guides and defenders of the principle of universality. The potential for social exclusion is increased by technological advances, and we will look to our public service broadcasters to counter that effect. If public service broadcasters are to continue to thrive, they must be seen to adhere to their public service remits, and to demonstrate their accountability to the public and to democratic bodies.
  1214
  In future, public service broadcasting must be something distinctive and special, with correspondingly distinct regulatory arrangements, rather than the regulated norm from which everything else deviates. That, in turn, means that public service broadcasters need to rise to the challenge of restating their purpose and demonstrating to the public that the purpose is being met.
  As the number of channels increases and new technologies offer new features, such as time-shifted viewing and internet access, our system of regulation will need to evolve. Although there will always be different views about difficult cases, overall, this system has been very effective so far in maintaining standards and providing a reasonable level of consumer protection. The watershed, in particular, is widely recognised and accepted by viewers.
  Changes in technology and the increase in channels will make it more difficult and, arguably, inappropriate to apply effective regulation in the same detailed way. We want to strike a balance between responding to these changes and facilitating the development of the industry on the one hand, and remaining true to the principle of providing viewers with adequate protection on the other.
  We are, therefore, working with the ITC to examine how regulation in the short term can be simplified and applied more lightly. We are concerned that viewers should know clearly when they are watching broadcasts meeting familiar standards, and when they are in a new environment, as they might be when accessing the internet through interactive services.
  Viewers will need new skills to navigate the new media world safely. It will be increasingly important to develop critical viewing skills for the general viewer, for parents and teachers responsible for children, and for children and young people themselves to supplement the regulatory system as it evolves. To this end, my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting—together with the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills)—chaired a seminar earlier this week of senior figures in broadcasting, education theory and parenting support to examine the issues and the options for action.
  The research work of the Broadcasting Standards Commission will be important in providing an insight into viewers' developing attitudes. Most commentators expect that the main terrestrial channels will continue to provide the majority of television watching for some time to come. However, we need to be looking ahead to the new era and ensuring that our regulatory and legislative framework is sufficiently future-proof.
  Digital broadcasting has the potential to bring great benefits to viewers of televised sport. Additional services will mean that viewers will have better coverage of more sports events on more channels. However, the Government will ensure that viewers who cannot afford—or do not want—subscription services are not excluded from access to nationally important sporting occasions.
  Last year, I extended the list of events for which live and secondary coverage on free-to-air channels is protected, adding several events for the first time. I shall continue to monitor the scope of the list as digital services develop further.
  The UK leads the world in digital transmission technology. The Government's aim is to have a regulatory environment that will enable and encourage the television

  1215
  and radio broadcasting industry to flourish. However, content will be the king in the digital future. I want to ensure that programme makers are best placed to identify and take advantage of all the opportunities this will bring.

  The export of programmes and programme formats can benefit both the industry and viewers by generating funds for investment in the domestic market. The UK is already very successful at selling programmes overseas, but our industry can do better and, to this end, I appointed an inquiry earlier this year to make recommendations on measures to support export efforts. We shall shortly publish the inquiry's sensible and realistic proposals for the industry and for Government action.
  It is equally important that we develop the talent and have the trained work force to maximise the opportunities offered by digital. The success of the industry in an increasingly converged market will rely heavily on the skills and talents of the work force. That is why my Department, together with Skillset, has established a training group of key industry players under Roger Laughton's leadership. The group, which met for the first time last month, is already setting about the task of identifying current and future skills needs and considering what needs to be done to ensure that the skills are there to allow the UK to compete effectively in the world media market.
  We have challenged the industry to make digital television a success, but the Government have a clear role here in driving forward the change. I have taken the view shared by the industry that an evolutionary approach to broadcasting regulation is right and broadly sustainable for the time being. However, it is clear to me that the time for a more fundamental assessment of broadcasting legislation is coming and I anticipate that we may be able to include major broadcasting legislation early in the next Parliament.
  The main issues for such legislation might be the role of the regulators, the role of the public service broadcasters and media ownership. I want to proceed with that work without delay. I am setting up a dedicated unit within my Department, and we will announce its programme of work and the consultation process in relation to these issues shortly.
  This is a time of great expansion in the broadcasting industry. The development of digital technology will need a clear and careful steer from both Government and Parliament to ensure the continued success of the industry and to ensure that the interests of all consumers are protected. My announcement of a switch-over date and the prospect of new legislation is only a beginning, but I believe that it is a positive one on which to build a successful UK broadcasting policy.
  10.12 am
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who has donned his tourism industry hat and is visiting a coastal resort. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) to the Front Bench; he will wind up the debate for the Opposition.
  I welcome this opportunity to discuss the future of broadcasting. It is a bit of a pity that the Government have tucked this debate away on a quiet Friday at half term, in a week of thin business. Broadcasting deserves better; it
  1216
  is a dynamic, growing, highly skilled industry, a powerhouse of new jobs that contributes an increasing amount to our gross domestic product, and something that we do extremely well. Britain is at the forefront of exploiting many of the new technologies. Our broadcasting industry is a showcase for our creative talent: our writers, actors, producers, directors and presenters. We can be justly proud of their work.
  Like so much else that is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, broadcasting is of immense importance to our quality of life and a powerful influence on society. People feel passionately about it. A headline in today's Financial Times—it will probably make it into the tabloids tomorrow—informs us of BSkyB's £1 billion offer for the Premiership rights. One need look no further than that for an assessment of the centrality of broadcasting issues to many people's lives.
  The Secretary of State touched on the question of sporting rights. Conservative Members recognise that the rights in any sport are the property of the sporting body. Substantial sums have flowed into sport from the sale of television rights in recent years. It is profoundly important that a significant part of that money should be used to support the grass roots of sport, as otherwise sport will suffer in the long run.
  As well as reflecting our society, broadcasting helps to shape our attitude towards ourselves, our neighbours and the world. It is the most powerful and pervasive medium ever invented. It can educate and inform like no other medium. It can also misinform like no other medium. It can create celebrities. It can even, it has been alleged, create Prime Ministers. Clearly, it is an important industry. It is so important that Governments have historically taken a very close interest in its affairs.
  Back in 1966, I believe, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), no less, famously remarked that broadcasting was too important to be left to the broadcasters. For once, he was in step with mainstream opinion. Hence, in the intervening years, there have been numerous Broadcasting Bills. In the 1980s, they took on a deregulatory flavour and we witnessed the establishment of Channel 4; the advent of cable; the liberalisation of communications; the arrival of satellite television; the dawn of local and national commercial radio; and later, the creation of Channel 5.
  The most recent Broadcasting Bill heralded the beginning of the digital age, opening the door to new and, for many people, baffling and slightly scary opportunities: a world of 200 television channels, interactivity, media convergence and technical jargon definitely understood by the few and not the many—and, frankly, I suspect, not understood by many of the few either. It is easy to get lost in the jargon, and many have fallen victim to the temptation to get lost in messianic predictions of precisely how technology will change our lives.
  I commend the Government on taking a relatively cautious, pragmatic and evolutionary view of the impact of the multi-media age. Technology is moving so quickly that the one thing of which we can be certain is that almost every prediction that we make today will prove wrong tomorrow. Most people would have predicted a few years ago that we would all be watching more television at the end of the 20th century, but it turns out that we are watching less.

  1217
  I want to focus on what is possible—in the sense of being achievable—not on what is probable, and therefore probably wrong. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has recognised the need for a radical overhaul of the way that we regulate the media. It is always a matter for great anxiety for Opposition spokesmen when they find that the Secretary of State is doing something sensible. It does not happen very often but I believe that, when it does, it should be recognised.
  The Government are right to approach the future of regulation in consultative mode, but I do not understand why the Secretary of State has given the task of developing the new regulatory agenda to the Independent Television Commission. The ITC's remit runs only to the independent commercial sector and no review of broadcasting regulation can hope to be comprehensive if it fails to take the position of the BBC fully into account.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I fear that the hon. Gentleman may be under a misapprehension. The immediate-term review, considering what can be done to ease the regulatory burden within the present legislative environment, is indeed being led by the ITC; but the medium-term exercise of preparing major legislation for two or three years' time will be led by the Government ourselves, taking into account the views not only of the ITC but of a wide range of other sources.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful for that clarification, because there is some misunderstanding about that in the industry and some have been baffled by the ITC's role, so it is good to have the true position on the record. If the ITC is given too strong a role—let us not forget that it is part of the regime that the Secretary of State intends to overhaul—the right hon. Gentleman's approach to reforming regulation will be in danger of taking on a rather partial view, without a sufficiently dispassionate overview.
  A good starting point would be to aim to make the next Broadcasting Bill the last for a considerable time. As the purpose of successive Broadcasting Acts has been to deregulate, that would mean taking deregulation as far as it will go. Subject to normal competition policy, we should let the market decide the future shape of the commercial broadcasting industry. More than 30 years after the young Technology Minister, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, made his remark about the importance of broadcasting, the time has come to say that broadcasting is too important to be left to politicians.
  There is an important caveat. If the future lies, as many believe that it should, in a single regulatory authority, that authority will need two arms—one with a light touch, encouraging competition and innovation, and the other dealing with content. The time for detailed minute-by-minute analysis of radio and television schedules is probably over, but the public rightly continue to expect protection from degrading, gratuitously obscene and violent material.
  That is especially true and important with regard to children. Recent findings by the Broadcasting Standards Commission suggest that there is growing public concern about violence on television, and about the increasingly cynical approach to portrayals of explicit sexual activity, which are seen as simply a ploy to attract ratings.
  1218
  Whatever new regulatory regime emerges, there will be a continuing need to ensure that the young and vulnerable are protected. The Opposition believe that breaches of acceptable broadcasting standards should be the subject of tough penalties.
  Mr. Swayne: That process must be open to political lobbying; my hon. Friend will be aware that it is to their Members of Parliament that people write and complain. It would be a bit weak if we had to reply, "Actually, we have no leverage over those standards."
  Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which will be familiar to everyone in the Chamber—and nobody is better equipped than he to conduct political lobbying.
  We also believe in maintaining the present watershed, with rigorous enforcement. We must, however, also recognise that parents have a duty to regulate what their children watch, and that adults are the prime regulators of their own viewing habits; every television has an off button.
  I see no reason why all broadcasters should not be subject to the same degree of authority. That is by no means to say that they should be required to produce the same type of programming, but merely to say that they should be subject to the same scrutiny, accountability and sanctions. At the earliest opportunity, the BBC's programme content should be brought under independent and impartial regulation.
  The debate is about the future of broadcasting, not about the future of the BBC. However, as the BBC is so important within the United Kingdom broadcasting universe, the two are closely bound together. I doubt whether anybody in the Chamber does not admire the BBC. Since its inception, it has played a pivotal role in the life of the nation, providing a benchmark of quality to which all other broadcasters aspire. I want that to continue, and I agree with the Secretary of State that, in future, that role is likely to grow in importance.
  However, I am not persuaded that the BBC's demands for extra funding are justified. The starting point of any inquiry into its funding should be the question: what is the BBC for? The remit handed to the Davies panel by the Secretary of State did not permit it to ask that question, and the result is a report that, although well considered, is fundamentally flawed. There is a need for the BBC to redefine its mission as a public service broadcaster in the light of a radically changed media environment. Only when that has been done can funding issues be properly addressed.
  We set out our views on the Davies issues in some detail in our submission to the panel last summer, and I shall not rehearse them all today. However, I welcome the fact that, on several important issues, the panel reached the same conclusions as the Conservative party. For example, there is the introduction of private capital into BBC Worldwide, and the sale of the bulk of BBC resources. There is also the emphasis on greater accountability, financial transparency and the reduction of waste. There is a proposal to improve the discount for blind people, and the idea of advertising sponsorship or subscription on the BBC's public services is rejected.
  We are however disappointed that the panel did little to challenge the BBC's underlying assumption that it requires extra funding. It has been interesting to hear

  1219
  today that the Secretary of State appears to share some of our scepticism. I welcome the fact that he is now appointing consultants to look into the BBC's books, but I cannot help observing that it would have been helpful if he had done that before establishing the Davies committee in the first place.
  Let us have a quick look at the BBC's finances. Under the arrangements established in 1996, the corporation has received the benefit of licence fee increases above the rate of inflation. The sale of the home service transmitters raised £244 million. Incidentally, that sale was supposed to fund the BBC's entry into digital broadcasting, so it is disappointing that, only three years later, it has come back to ask for more money for precisely the same purpose.
  Since 1996, the commercial businesses under BBC Worldwide have brought in about £210 million in extra revenue. Efficiency savings have realised £267 million for programmes over the past three years. In total, the increase in resources between 1996 and 1999 has been about £1 billion, which is equal to half the corporation's annual income from the licence fee, and considerably more than the £750 million that it costs to run BBC1.
  It should also be noted that the BBC enjoys privileged free access to the spectrum. According to figures published by the Radio Authority and the ITC, national commercial radio pays £9 million a year and terrestrial television pays £345 million a year to the Exchequer for the use of the spectrum; the BBC pays nothing. Arguably, that represents a further financial benefit.
  In future, although the licence fee is set to increase by less than the rate of inflation, current projections of household growth suggest that the BBC can still budget for a rise in licence fee income in real terms over the next 10 years. In addition, the contribution from the commercial activities is forecast to quadruple over the next six years.
  In other words, it is not obvious to me that the BBC is short of money. I am not at all convinced, either, that the scope for efficiency savings has been exhausted. The BBC's corporate centre still costs the licence fee payer £60 million a year. A much greater effort needs to be made to eliminate waste; the BBC should be looking for ways of reducing rather than increasing the licence fee.
  The Opposition do not accept the panel's arguments in favour of a digital licence supplement, although we are not surprised—presumably, the Secretary of State is not surprised either—that a panel chaired by Gavyn Davies, who had the idea of the licence supplement in the first place, should recommend it. We note the ingenuity with which the panel has finessed this proposal, but we still believe that a digital licence tax would be wrong in principle and in practice. It would represent a tax on new technology and innovation and it would impede the take-up of digital services, even against a distant background of analogue switch-off. We also believe that the new tax would bear most heavily on families on low incomes.
  We note that, for its assessment of the impact of a digital licence fee, the panel relied for its principal evidence on a report commissioned by the BBC. We regret that the panel did not seek evidence from more independent sources. The Secretary of State will no doubt be aware of a report, featured in today's newspapers, by the economic consultants, NERA. In its view, the digital tax, as proposed by Gavyn Davies, could delay the take-up of digital by between two and four years.
  1220
  The panel's proposal to sell a 49 per cent. stake in BBC Worldwide represents an uneasy halfway house that is unlikely to satisfy industry concerns about fair trading or to raise a sufficiently attractive capital sum. We believe that a better long-term solution for the licence fee payer, for BBC Worldwide itself and for the industry as a whole, would be to sell the commercial operations outright. We regret that the panel did not investigate more thoroughly whether new services, such as News 24 and BBC Choice—which have cost the licence fee payer more than £100 million in the past two years—are properly justified under the public service banner, especially bearing in mind the charter commitment to universal access.
  The question of licence fee concessions has attracted much interest. Everybody agrees that the present arrangements for concessions are arbitrary, complex and, in many ways, unfair. The problem is that nobody can agree on how to make them better. Disappointingly, the Davies committee was evasive on the question of concessions for pensioners. The panel was not much help to the Secretary of State, who will now have to decide between three options. He could leave the present unsatisfactory arrangements in place, and put the issue in a drawer marked "too hard"; he could irritate the BBC by requiring it to deliver a more generous arrangement; or he could try to persuade his colleagues in the Treasury that the attractions of a pre-election bribe outweigh the last election pledge to reduce the welfare budget. The Government's control of the welfare budget has already been shot to pieces, so he may well choose the latter option. It is not necessary to do so.
  We believe that there is scope for a fairer and more generous concession scheme, but the question of paying for increased concessions cannot be divorced from the overall context of the need to reduce unnecessary expenditure by the BBC and to reduce waste.
  Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman has made much of the issue of financing for the BBC and few people would not wish to encourage efficiency and cutting bureaucracy. The issue is what the finance is for, and I hope that he will explain the Opposition's view of the BBC's role in the future. Only if we know that can we judge its financial requirements.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The role of the BBC in the immediate future is to define what it means by public service broadcasting in the light of the radically changed media environment in which it now operates. It was set up in the 1920s as a monopoly provider of radio services and it had the great Reithian vision of being all things to all people. It managed to keep that vision intact through all the changes of the latter part of the 20th century and did so very well. However, the BBC needs to come to terms with the fact that we now live in an age of explosive choice. It can no longer continue to apply the principles that were right for a monopoly provider of radio services to an age in which consumer choice has moved into a completely new orbit and competition is rife and varied. The Secretary of State and the BBC will need to work out carefully the meaning of public service broadcasting in the multi-media age.
  Once the BBC has done that, I have no doubt that the principal justification of the BBC is programmes. It is programmes that will underpin the licence fee. However,

  1221
  if it continues to chase ratings and to compete overtly with the commercial sector in a way that the commercial sector finds offensive, the BBC runs the risk of forfeiting the justification for the licence fee. Instead of "Walking with Dinosaurs", it will be sleeping with the plesiosaurs.
  Dr. Turner: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's courtesy in giving way again. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government face the issue of funding next spring. What is the view of the Opposition on what should be funded? What role does the hon. Gentleman envisage for the BBC in the digital era? Should money come from somewhere else, or is the Secretary of State charged with ensuring—after accountants have reported—that what the BBC is trying to do now should be continued in the digital era? Does the hon. Gentleman accept the BBC's internet services and its provision of the new news services, for example?
  Mr. Ainsworth: If the hon. Gentleman cares to see me after the debate, I will give him a copy of our extensive document, "Fair Funding for the BBC", which makes detailed recommendations. I do not wish to embark on a in depth exposition of that document, because it is available and on the public record.
  I welcome the Davies committee's recommendation for a half-price licence for registered blind people. It is a good idea and I hope that the Secretary of State will accept the panel's advice. I note that the Royal National Institute for the Blind has some outstanding concerns about the way in which licence fees are collected, including the sometimes threatening tone of letters, and the need to develop audio subscription services as soon as practically possible. It also raises important issues concerning the use of text on the screen and more accessible programme information. The RNIB has offered to work with the Government and broadcasters on developing solutions to those problems, and I urge them both to take up the offer.
  The Davies panel also makes some welcome recommendations about subtitling, and urges more ambitious targets for the introduction of subtitles on digital television. I hope that the Secretary of State will take those recommendations to heart and go further. It is farcical, as the Royal National Institute for Deaf People has said, that, while digital terrestrial broadcasters are required to provide subtitling, cable and satellite broadcasters have no such obligation. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of my noble Friend Baroness Anelay, who has done much to draw the attention of Parliament to the issues raised by people with disabilities on their access to broadcasting.
  Failure to enable adequate access to new television services for blind and deaf people will act as a serious impediment to the take-up of digital television. The Secretary of State has recognised the importance of encouraging digital take-up and announced a possible time frame for the switch-off of analogue transmission. Again, the Government have been judicious rather than courageous, but, in this case, that is the right approach.
  Even so, more still needs to be done if the Secretary of State's targets for digital take-up are to be met by 2006. While the take-up of digital television has so far been very encouraging, with around 2 million households now
  1222
  participating, it seems clear that the process of converting to digital services is being driven by a desire for subscription channels. A large proportion—perhaps 50 per cent.—of the population are, and are likely to remain, uninterested in subscription television and only want or can afford free-to-view television.
  What do the Government propose to do to encourage those who want only free-to-view television to go digital? The free set-top boxes being offered by BSkyB and Ondigital appear to some in the equipment manufacturing industry to be part of the problem. It is said that they are suppressing demand for integrated digital television sets. The Government should be concerned that the number of analogue televisions being sold in Britain this year will be higher than it was last year, and will outnumber sales of digital sets by a factor of more than 100.
  I entirely agree with the Secretary of State's remarks about the seriousness of the problem to do with public confusion over what is on offer, what options are available and what the benefits of digital television may be. That is not helped by spats between BSkyB and Ondigital over the screening or otherwise of various sporting events. I am sure that the Secretary of State would wish to join me in urging those companies to sort out those problems soon.
  I suspect that most people are not even aware that they have been watching analogue television signals all their lives. Why should they be? It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the news that the analogue signal will be switched off rouses alarm and indifference in almost equal measure—although I reckon that indifference just about has the edge at the moment.
  I welcome the Secretary of State's statement that the Government will get together with manufacturers, retailers and broadcasters to begin a major public information exercise so that consumers can be told, reliably, clearly and in language stripped of jargon, about what is available, what the benefits are, and how to make informed decisions. Unless that happens, there is a real risk that the switch to digital will falter, and that the 95 per cent. household penetration threshold will not be met.
  It would be wrong and absurd to have a debate on the future of broadcasting without mentioning radio. The radio industry has been one of the great commercial success stories of recent years. Following the successive liberalisations under the previous Government, commercial radio stations have sprung up all over the UK. They have become established and profitable, and now form a vital part of the national broadcasting scene.
  There has always been a tendency among radio people to consider themselves the poor relations of television, although I exclude from that observation the presenters of the "Today" programme. Under this Government, the radio industry knows that it is the poor relation. Scarcely any consideration at all was given to the BBC's radio service by the Davies panel. Even the panel's attitude survey failed to seek views on the future of the BBC's radio services.
  The Secretary of State's important speech last month, in which he set out the timetable for the digital revolution, failed to make even a passing reference to the radio industry. This week, in reply to my written question about the Government's thinking on the future of the analogue radio signal, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting admitted that she was not even contemplating universal digital radio services.

  1223
  I suspect that the Government, along with many people in the radio industry, have simply forgotten about radio altogether. I take this opportunity to remind the Secretary of State of radio's importance to millions of listeners. If it is not too much trouble, will he examine seriously the issues facing what is an important industry?
  What are the Government doing to help encourage the take-up of digital radio? What are they doing to modernise the commercial radio ownership rules, and to take into account the role of the BBC in local radio when considering issues of plurality and competition?
  Successful radio companies are constrained by the points system, which limits, on the basis of population areas, the number of stations that a company can own. A good case can be made for a system based on a share of voice, which would be a more realistic and relevant measurement. What do the Government think about that?
  What do the Government intend to do about the scarcity of spectrum and digital radio development? I hope that the Minister, when she winds up the debate, will answer some of those questions. Scarcity of spectrum was the main reason why the previous Government excluded religious broadcasters from bidding for national radio licences. At that time, spectrum scarcity was a real problem, but technology is moving on. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to announce his intentions for religious broadcasting?
  I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's answer earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was somewhat evasive. Conservative Members believe that the time has come to say that it is not appropriate for Parliament to disqualify Christian groups or other religious groups from applying for national or local radio stations. They should be able to compete on the same basis as all the other bidders for the right to broadcast. We look forward, with bated breath, to the Minister's concluding remarks.
  Finally, just as no consideration of the future of broadcasting would be complete without mention of radio, so it is important to recognise the significance of advertising. It is often forgotten that there would be no commercial television or radio to speak of without advertising. Advertising is the driving force behind the new technologies that are changing the landscape of broadcasting.
  It follows, therefore, that any attack on advertising and the advertising industry that threatens future revenues is an attack on broadcasting. We understand that there are moves afoot among some European countries, led by Sweden, to ban or restrict advertising aimed at children. That proposal is patronising, bossy and dictated by political correctness. It would also be entirely counterproductive, resulting in less investment in children's programming and leading simply to more imports of cheap cartoons, of which there are probably too many already.
  I appreciate that the advertising sector comes under the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, but will the Secretary of State or the Minister take this opportunity to place on record the Government's recognition of the link between investment in advertising and investment in programming? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the broadcasting industry that, in the event of any attempt to curtail children's advertising, the Government will put up stiff resistance?
  1224
  I have tried to identify several areas in which a bit more effort by the Government would help in the development of this important industry and enable it to go from strength to strength. For the most part, however, the most constructive thing that the Government can do is to get out of the way. That is what I hope that they will do.
  10.47 am
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I agreed with much, if not quite all, of what the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said about the Gavyn Davies report. I note the Conservative party's new-found fastidiousness towards pre-election bribes: I have always been in favour of a good solid pre-election bribe, provided that it is offered by a Labour Government.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for giving the House the opportunity to debate the future of broadcasting today. I agreed with much in his speech, and welcome his strictures on Mr. Richard Eyre's views on public service broadcasting. I do not believe that the person who was the driving force behind downgrading peak-time television news has much right to talk about the ethos of public service broadcasti-g.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) to the Opposition Front Bench. Knowing the robustness of his views on a great many subjects—with many of which I often agree—I look forward to hearing what he has to say.
  The hon. Member for East Surrey spoke about the BBC series "Walking with Dinosaurs". It is appropriate that that series is the BBC's latest success, as the BBC itself is turning into a communications dinosaur.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: They looked frighteningly alive to me.
  Mr. Kaufman: The BBC or the dinosaurs?
  Many of the recommendations in the Gavyn Davies report seem foolish, but an even greater problem is that, with one or two exceptions, they are irrelevant to the future of broadcasting. The report examines the BBC alone, not setting it within the context of wider developments in audio-visual communications, which are bringing about the greatest communications revolution in the history of the human race and which might bring revolutions in society and employment that might outstrip even the changes brought by the industrial revolution in the 19th century.
  We should first dismiss the Davies report's recommendations on the television licence. A digital supplement on the licence would be a fine on those who subscribe to commercial digital services. The infinitesimally few people—too few to be counted—who watch BBC digital services do so by subscribing either to Sky Digital or Ondigital. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pointed out that 1.8 million households subscribe to those services, which may mean that around 5 million people pay to watch digital programmes.
  It is unacceptable to expect that those people should, in addition to the contracts into which they enter voluntarily, be required to pay a regressive poll tax to the BBC whose digital programmes—if they watch them at all—they can watch only through paying digital subscriptions. That

  1225
  point is quite apart from the utter absurdity of the sum proposed for the additional subscription of £1.99. What on earth are these people up to? This is no Tesco bargain offer on which one can take a penny off. The Davies report is proposing a £2 fee, and if its signatories think that they can get away with making people believe that it is less by taking off a penny, that merely shows the patronising nature of their report. It would be equally wrong to increase the licence as Lord Gordon proposes in his note of disagreement.
  Let me turn to arguments that torpedo the Gavyn Davies proposal for the digital licence. I have received today a report, "The Impact Of A Digital Licence Fee On The Take-up Of Digital Television", from the National Economic Research Associates. It states, at paragraph 2.5:
  "The Davies Report's conclusion that a digital licence fee will not have a significant impact on take-up does not withstand detailed scrutiny."
  The report subjects Davies to just such detailed scrutiny, arguing:
  "We expect a digital licence fee supplement to have an adverse impact on the take-up of digital services by both pay and free-to-air homes … The results of our analysis suggest that the digital licence fee is incompatible with the Government's objectives for early switch over from analogue to digital television."
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the announcement of his plans for analogue switch-off, which accord with the report of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. I should add that, although the Select Committee will shortly conduct an inquiry into the Gavyn Davies report, I am not speaking for the Committee today and have no right or authority to do so. I am speaking purely on my own account.
  The NERA report continues:
  "Assuming that analogue services are switched off when digital penetration reaches 95 per cent. of television homes, the digital licence fee scenarios all suggest a delay of approximately 3 years beyond the end of the Government's 2006–2010 target range for switch over."
  The report's central estimate is that adoption of a digital licence fee of the kind proposed by the Gavyn Davies report would reduce penetration of digital television in households by 10 per cent.—2,570,000 households—by 2004, and by 20 per cent. by 2008. Apart from its misguided nature and its regressive impact—to which the hon. Member for East Surrey referred—the Davies report simply has not taken into account the effect on digital television. That results from the report's utter, tunnel-visioned obsession with the BBC and nothing but the BBC.
  I am opposed to the digital supplement. I am also opposed to any increase beyond the settlement decided by the previous Government, which was over-generous, for the licence until 2006. The BBC spends money as if there were no tomorrow. It can do so because it has a guaranteed income of £2 billion because of the licence. It is the only hypothecated tax whose rules are laid down by its recipient and which is collected by the recipient. No doubt, other organisations would like to be able to do that.
  The hon. Member for East Surrey referred to "BBC News 24". At the last count, 0.1 per cent. of the television audience was watching that, but it costs £30 million a
  1226
  year. The sums being spent on consultants—to little or no avail so far as I can see—are monumentally large. There are other matters on which the BBC fritters finance. There is a forthcoming jamboree at Hampton Court. It was recently reported in the press that £2,000 was being spent on providing ambient noise so that those who work at BBC headquarters in White City should not feel lonely.
  Today, another news story tells us that the BBC will spend an unspecified amount to make people feel more lonely; a new system called sound-masking is being introduced at Broadcasting House so that some BBC employees cannot overhear what others are saying. A BBC spokesman has said that personnel and legal staff may obviously not wish others to hear what they are saying. The corporation is spending money on concealing conversations at the same time as spending money to provide bogus conversations.
  Mr. Baker: Perhaps journalists at Broadcasting House have good reason to feel lonely, because most of their colleagues have been shipped out to White City and replaced by managers.
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall not reveal what employees of the BBC say privately about their management because I favour good employment practices.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I will give way again, but shall not do so often because I do not want to take up too much time and I have several more broadsides to deliver.
  Mr. McWalter: I am aware that those broadsides are on their way, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC retains unparalleled authority in many fields? It is held in great regard by many people who use its services. Its internet sites continue to grow at an enormous rate; they have great authority and provide a good service to schools and to adults and children who want authoritative information. Will my right hon. Friend bear those points in mind when he launches his broadsides?
  Mr. Kaufman: I have an extremely high regard for my hon. Friend, but that will not allow me to endorse the panegyric that we have just heard—a panegyric that is not shared by many millions of people in this country. Although they may be accustomed to the BBC—indeed, they have to be, because they pay large sums, against their will, to keep it going—they no longer regard it as a special case. They think of the BBC as only one broadcaster among many whose wares they sample, as they feel appropriate.
  I disagree with Lord Gordon's footnote to the Gavyn Davies report in which he opposes the digital licence, while advocating an increase in the general licence. However, I agree with him when he asks whether the BBC should continue to do things just because commercial companies do them. When the BBC was the only broadcaster, it was appropriate for it to provide a reasonably full spectrum of entertainment, education and information.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Is it not the point of the BBC that it does what commercial broadcasters cannot do?
  Mr. Kaufman: Sometimes the BBC does what commercial broadcasters should not do.

  1227
  The day has passed when the BBC could do everything—even if we believed that it should do everything. The hon. Member for East Surrey mentioned that BSkyB was willing to spend £1 billion on a deal with the Premier League. In a commercial market, BskyB has a perfect right to do that, but it is not what the BBC should be getting up to. The BBC should provide a wide range of high quality programmes in education and entertainment, without feeling that, whenever anyone else in the commercial market does anything, it should have to do the same.
  On page 42 of the Gavyn Davies report, we read of the kind of money that the BBC is asking for in order to fulfil its vision. We are told that it wants a further £700 million, and although the purpose of £300 million of that money was specified to the panel in detail, the purpose of the remaining £400 million was not. The BBC is extremely free with taxpayers' money. I have a high regard for much that the BBC does; it has contributed what is possibly the most precious single aspect of broadcasting in the world today—the ethos of public service broadcasting. Nevertheless, that does not mean that it should receive a blank cheque for whatever pops into its head—a great deal pops into heads at the BBC.
  Commercial companies risk shareholders' money in the market. If they fail, they fail; indeed, satellite companies nearly did fail at the beginning. However, failure is a risk for commercial companies. The BBC risks taxpayers' money, and then demands more. There is not merely a case against increasing the licence fee, but one in favour of freezing it in cash terms during the whole of this charter period. There is also a strong case for providing substantial concessions to those who cannot afford what, to many people, is an amount that they can take in their stride, but to many others is money that is difficult to find.
  When I was shadow Home Secretary—in days beyond most people's memory—I advocated, as official Labour party policy, free television licences for pensioners. That is an idea whose time has returned. I strongly commend to my right hon. Friend the idea that all pensioners be provided with a voucher equivalent to the television licence. I realise that there are problems in removing from pensioners the obligation to pay the licence fee, because some of them share their homes with their children. There might thus be a justified apprehension that we might be subsidising people who were below pensionable age. However, if we provided every pensioner with such a voucher, they could either obtain a free licence, or pay a subscription to one of the services that are not free to air under the licence arrangements. That is my small recommendation for a pre-election bribe.
  The BBC is doing far too little to obtain commercial income. The hon. Member for East Surrey referred to its commercial ventures. We have gone far beyond the question of whether the BBC is a hybrid organisation—part public sector and part commercial. The BBC has commercial partnerships with many organisations here and abroad, such as Flextech and UK Gold. It takes advertising on some of its overseas ventures. The BBC is no longer pristine and pure when it comes to commercial activity. In view of that fact, the BBC needs to earn far more income from its commercial activities, using that money to fund whatever additional activities it deems appropriate.
  The Gavyn Davies report records a pathetic target for BBC Resources Ltd. of £82 million revenue over the next five years. The report makes it clear that—petty though it
  1228
  is—that sum is over-ambitious because BBC Resources Ltd. is losing money. On the other hand, although I have said on many occasions that I am in favour of the privatisation of the BBC as such—I remain unrepentant in saying it—I certainly do not commend the report's proposal for the privatisation of BBC Resources Ltd. On page 101, the report rightly states:
  "As with any privatisation, these sales would replace a flow of revenue by a single capital payment."
  If BBC Resources Ltd. were run so that it made the money that it should make, there would be a most valuable addition to BBC revenues. It is absurd to sell it off for one capital payment when, properly run, it could add a great deal to the BBC's revenues.

  There are many ways in which the BBC—if properly, efficiently, effectively and imaginatively run—could make large amounts of money. Reference has been made to BBC Online, which is probably the most enterprising and forward looking of all the corporation's activities. It costs £23 million a year. The Davies report said that, in June this year, the site was receiving 100 million hits—it probably receives even more now—50 per cent. of which originated abroad. It is absolutely typical of the lack of imagination displayed in the report that it says that BBC Online should not be commercialised. Here we have a service, funded by the licence, half of whose usage originates with people overseas, who gain access for the cost of a local telephone call. If the BBC took advertising on it, it could fund the entire enterprise—
  Mr. McWalter rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: If my hon. Friend is about to tell me that the BBC has beeb.com as well, I have to say that beeb.com is a mere fledgling, whereas BBC Online is up and working and could bring in a great deal of money for the corporation.
  Mr. McWalter: I am grateful, because I know that my right hon. Friend does not really want to give way. Beeb.com, which is the commercial arm, exists, but there are no trails from BBC.co.uk to beeb.com. If those links from the free BBC Online service to commercial products were established, it would be a way of making beeb.com work much harder.
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend's suggestion demonstrates the dilemma now facing us: he is saying that a wholly licence-funded service should be used to advertise a commercial service, which brings us to the issue of transparency of financing within the BBC—a matter with which many of us are dissatisfied. The BBC is a hybrid organisation, so BBC Online being used to gain audiences and money for beeb.com would mean that licence payers' money was being used to finance a commercial service, whereas we have been told—somewhat unconvincingly—by the BBC that it ring-fences the licence funded services. My hon. Friend's suggestion is worth considering, but he has illustrated the increasing commercialism of the BBC.
  Although it makes some rather strange recommendations, the report says something quite wise on page 65:
  "We also expect that closer convergence will take place between websites and broadcast services, so that the BBC's domestic audience will increasingly access BBC output via the website."

  1229
  That is absolutely true and that is the way of the future. We are approaching the era of convergence and it is that which makes the Gavyn Davies report not only foolish, but irrelevant. The report describes not only the BBC but the entire audiovisual communications environment that is now coming into being, and the panel's comments apply to that revolutionary environment as well as to the BBC.
  While the BBC whinges about a supplementary digital licence for services that no one watches, its rivals march into the future and cost the taxpayer not a penny in doing so. While the BBC stagnates in a poll-tax financed backwater, the real cutting edge of enterprise and innovation is found in the private sector. Every day, one finds more information about new developments. The Times today tells of W H Smith being
  "in talks with a number of 'big names' to help it to bolster its new Internet service and construct a second side to the business to rival its traditional bookselling."
  Analysts are talking about the development of holiday services, supermarket services and special deals on home delivery. That is the future.
  Photo-Me International, best known for its passport photograph booths, has already announced that it is to transform 1,000 of those booths to enable people to access the internet and use e-mail. The company announced only a few days ago that some of its booths are to be used to pioneer the downloading of music on to CDs with which people can then walk away. Carlton Communications is moving away from the transmission of films via celluloid distributed in cans to cinemas; it plans to replace analogue spools with film that can be stored on disk and beamed down from satellites or sent down fibre-optic cables. The era of e-cinema may bring films e-mailed to people's homes so that they can watch them on their own television. Telewest Communications has announced that it is to recruit 840 staff to expand the scope its digital services.
  A great convergence revolution is taking place—people talk about the prospect of convergence, but it is already here. Today, we can get television sets on which we can not only watch television programmes, but log on to the internet and use e-mail. Although the BBC has set up its BBC Online service, it appears to be utterly impervious to the idea that such services are the future. Soon—possibly within months—we shall be able to buy an entirely converged box that combines the capacities of the computer and those of the television set. That will result, not in the realisation of the "family around the fireside" vision described by Sir John Birt in his recent lecture, but in limitless opportunities for everyone in society, regardless of income, to participate in entertainment.
  The hon. Member for East Surrey spoke of the fall in television audience: the reason that that is occurring is that people are turning to the internet. There are now 10 million people in Britain who have access to the internet, ranging from schoolchildren in their bedrooms to pensioners, who increasingly use the internet to access the world. One can get all sorts of things via the internet. When I was in Palestine taking part in a recent conference, I was able, via a computer, to read The Daily Telegraph and The Times and to refrain from reading The Guardian every day. When the picture quality has
  1230
  been sorted out, which will happen soon, we shall be able to watch entertainment of all kinds on television-quality or even cinema-quality screens. That is the future for our country.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, rightly, that we in this country have a primacy in the basic lingua franca of broadcasting that no one else in the world possesses: the English language is the key to communications. We see abroad the creation of vast media conglomerates: last month, Viacom, which already owns Hollywood's Paramount studios, the MTV channel and the Blockbuster video rental chain, bought the CBS Corporation for $34 billion; and News Corporation is already an immense transcontinental organisation. Meanwhile, the BBC whinges about a supplementary digital television licence, when it could be a major player in world communications.
  The BBC has the most famous and respected logo in the communications world. We need the BBC to compete, expand and safeguard the public service ethos that is its priceless legacy and gift to world communications. Instead of paddling about in backwaters, it is time to swim purposefully into the tide. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the future of broadcasting in its real context. He must set aside the irrelevancies in these finicking reports and ensure that our country, which pioneered broadcasting, can continue to lead the world.
  11.20 am
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: After that broadside, I feel rather nervous about risking my rigging by sailing close to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to defend the BBC from his attack. It is a pity when debates about the future of broadcasting and the BBC boil down to an argument about what kind of potted plants should be put in the office of the director general. We should talk today about quality. The Secretary of State was absolutely right when he said that the BBC still provides quality broadcasting, although perhaps not in sufficient quantity. Despite his great vision for the future, I, as a fully paid-up member of the forces of conservatism, like to switch on the television and sit down to watch a programme that I find interesting. I do not particularly want to sit alone in an attic playing with the internet: I am happy to be an old-fashioned, conventional television viewer.
  The poor old BBC has marched up and down the same hill in successive generations: it does not know whether it should compete for ratings or produce quality programmes. It has always faced that dilemma. The licence fee is a regressive tax and the BBC argues, quite properly, that, because many people pay for it, it should provide programmes for the many and not simply for middle-class, educated Members of Parliament who go on about quality programmes. That is a difficult decision for the BBC; ultimately, I believe that Parliament will have to take it. We will have to decide, following proper consultation, in which direction we want to send the BBC. I agree with the Secretary of State that it should concentrate on quality: it should establish a benchmark in the broadcasting spectrum.
  People often criticise the BBC for being wasteful—and I have no doubt that, like many large, sleepy corporations, it often is wasteful. BBC producers and production staff at lower levels worry that their budgets are cut endlessly

  1231
  while management remains top heavy. A report was published recently by an organisation called the Campaign for Quality Television. It is a pressure group, so one must be cautious about its findings, but it conducted some alarming interviews with BBC staff and other television companies. It found that, as a result of budget cuts in the BBC, there is
  "a growing culture of self-censorship: 'Every year, they keep cutting. We feel we've become so budget orientated that we've clipped our own wings, we don't even suggest ideas because we think it will be too expensive.'"
  That alarming attitude must be addressed. However, it does not change my basic view that the BBC forms a valuable part of our broadcasting spectrum and should be defended, not ceaselessly attacked and demoralised.
  I welcome also the Secretary of State's remarks about the roll-out of digital terrestrial television. He said that the test of availability will be a crucial benchmark in deciding when the analogue switch-off will occur. I was particularly pleased to hear him say that at least 99.4 per cent. coverage will have to be achieved and that he would like to aim for universal coverage.
  As I have said before, I represent a constituency in which live some of the 0.6 per cent. of people who cannot receive television. I am afraid that it is a little like a soap opera: every time that I talk about broadcasting, I like to speak up for the few remaining people in the United Kingdom who cannot get television. Their lives are quite different, and, I believe, not as rich, because they do not see the soap operas and the news programmes. They will miss out on the new interactive and digital services that are coming on line. Therefore, it is extremely important that we make studious efforts to achieve 100 per cent. coverage.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does my hon. Friend agree that some people choose not to have television and argue that their lives are much richer as a result?
  Mr. Atkinson: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who has just bought a television, survived for a long time without one. I never mention the exact location of that part of my constituency where television is not available because I fear that if I did, many people would flock there so that their children could not watch television. It is good news that such people will have access to television in the future.
  I must pay tribute to the BBC because it is not generally realised that its digital satellite services are available to such people free of charge. There is potential for great improvement in that area because, if people are prepared to purchase a set-top box and a decoder card from the BBC, they will be able to receive all BBC digital services, including BBC Choice and BBC News 24, and Channels 4 and 5. However, people will not receive ITV 1 and ITV 2—and I shall turn to that issue in a moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and I have a long-standing disagreement about this subject. I do not think that a disagreement between two commercial companies can be dismissed lightly as a spat. It may seem like a spat to him, but it is a fundamental point of principle arising from the question of platform universality. Those people who want free-to-air services cannot receive ITV because the two
  1232
  companies refuse, for commercial reasons, to make it available to a satellite platform. In all fairness, BSkyB is compelled to make its programmes available on all platforms. I believe that we should hold absolutely to the principle of platform universality.
  That problem will affect not only those who cannot access television but those who cannot get digital terrestrial television signals for ONdigital or one or two multiplexes lower down the spectrum—I hope that that is the correct technical term. Although digital services are aimed at more than 95 per cent. of people, the programmes will be available only on multiplex one—the BBC's multiplex. Only 90 per cent. of people will ultimately be able to receive ONdigital services.
  The effect would be that next Wednesday, for example, many of those people who wanted to watch the match between Bayern Munich—I am not a great football supporter—and Rangers would be unable to do so. Although such a match would be of enormous interest to people in Scotland, at least 10 per cent. of Scots would not be able to watch it—even when the full digital roll-out is completed and even if they wished to pay to watch it on digital. That service will not be available.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that, even in the sophisticated south, I, as a Scot, was unable to watch Scotland play Spain at rugby because Meridian has not signed a BSkyB contract?
  Mr. Atkinson: That is an important issue, and I am sorry that I cannot convince my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey in that regard. People must have choice, whether one pays for a service or receives it free, and such services should be available on a universal platform. The Government must intervene when they review the regulations to ensure that it is part of the package deal.
  Mr. Desmond Browne: To complete the hon. Gentleman's education about both Scotland and football, I must point out, in all fairness, that about 10 per cent. of Scottish television viewers would choose not to watch Rangers play any team.
  Mr. Atkinson: That may be so, but people should be able to exercise self-censorship. It is rather frustrating if some of the 90 per cent. of people who want to watch the match cannot do so, even if they pay for the privilege.
  I understand the reason for that situation. The previous Government wanted to allow ONdigital to get off the ground, and they thought that it would do so if it was sheltered from too much competition. ONdigital has signed up 400,000 subscribers, and the time is rapidly coming when it should be able to face the full blast of competition and make its programmes available to all.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I know that my hon. Friend has for a long time strongly believed that the matter is one of important principle. I did not wish to belittle its importance. Indeed, I drew attention to the difficulty because of its impact on the take-up of digital television. The question is how to resolve the problem. He and I may disagree about that, but I have no doubt that it needs early resolution. The Government should work with those in the industry who are responsible to achieve an early solution

  1233
  because the public are confused and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) suggests, getting angry.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. We have made progress on that matter, which needs to be resolved urgently. It causes great confusion and we cannot wait two years for the proposed broadcasting Bill. Having scored a minor victory, I shall sit down.
  11.31 am
  Dr. George Turner: It is interesting that, in a debate on new technology, it is almost as if pride is taken in ignorance of that technology. If we are to make the right political and commercial decisions, we have to take care to understand what the technology makes possible. I have an engineering background, and I find that the pace of change in jargon is off-putting.
  The convergence to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) referred is indeed with us. It is not for the Government to decide who will win the battle of convergence and whether the recent Henley Centre report was correct in predicting that the television set will become the means by which shoppers interact with the marketplace, or whether that will come about through a major expansion in the use of the more traditional internet. Those issues will be decided by entrepreneurs who imagine how they can apply the new technology and successfully do so.
  The Government have two responsibilities. The first is to provide a level playing field so that the best of the technology can be used by the best of the entrepreneurs. The second—I was pleased that the Secretary of State referred to this in his speech in Cambridge—is to protect the interests of consumers while the entrepreneurs make or lose their fortunes.
  I want to concentrate on a particular group of consumers. It is important that we should look to the interests of the few as well as those of the many. We have heard that 95 per cent. of Britain has good television coverage, but my constituency is one of the few that has not. In Adjournment debates and on other occasions, I have brought the attention of the House to the fact that, although my constituency is in Norfolk, many of my constituents have to watch regional broadcasts from Yorkshire. Frankly, people in King's Lynn and nearby villages are not very interested in special offers that are available in Yorkshire.
  More importantly, there have been occasions when Anglia's regional television has transmitted reconstructed crime scenes, yet the people in the place where the crime has happened cannot watch those broadcasts. They can watch crime reconstructions taking place in Burnley, although there is almost no likelihood that they would have witnessed those crimes.
  I remind the House that 95 per cent. of the population put watching regional news programmes at the top of their television agenda. More people are keen to see their regional news than they are to watch soaps, yet those programmes are denied to many people in my constituency. Adjournment debates and other discussions in the House
  1234
  have revealed that there are many other hon. Members whose constituents suffer from that very problem. When I was preparing for an Adjournment debate on the subject, I found that between 30 and 40 hon. Members have constituents who have to put up with an entirely irritating and unsatisfactory delivery of the existing television channels. They have to put up with television that is meant to be watched by people in other areas.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), who greatly regrets that he cannot be here, pointed out to the House in April that his constituents see themselves as traditionally Cheshire or even Merseyside-oriented, and they do not see themselves as Welsh. People in Wirral, South do not want to watch television from Wales. I understand that my hon. Friend invited the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting to his constituency recently, and she probably got an earful. I am delighted that she has been invited to my constituency in the near future, where she will hear just a little of what I am told week in and week out about the frustration that people have had to put up with for a decade.
  It is a disgrace that the BBC, the public service broadcaster, and previous Governments have ignored their responsibility to attempt to fulfil their universal service obligation. That is why I have introduced a private Member's Bill to deal with the matter.
  I respectfully suggest that other minority groups need to benefit from the introduction of digital television. Some of them have already been mentioned. The possibilities of interactive television could be particularly important to people who are isolated, without means of transport, in rural parts of the country such as mine. It could help many poor people and people whom we do not want to encourage to travel or who cannot travel.
  There are many deaf people for whom the present regulations on the availability of subtitles are wholly inadequate. They are the very people who could benefit most from the introduction of the new technology, but they seem to be almost an afterthought. The targets set for all platforms are abysmally low, particularly for the take-up of the new technology by those who stand to gain most.
  I suspect that, in addressing the few hon. Members present, I am preaching to the converted, but there are many people who still think that the digital revolution involves simply a few extra channels and being able to watch extra films. It should, and does, involve more than that, and we should deal with it accordingly. We should not regard it as if, like colour television, it were a fancy innovation for the rich.
  Digital television and the services that it provides should be available to minority groups, because the technology makes it possible to help people with disabilities and others to have a better life. It should be helping people who are housebound. We should be enabling people to receive their own regional television broadcasts. All those minority groups should be high on the Government's agenda, although it is clear that they are routinely low on the agenda of those who are seeking large numbers of viewers so that they can maximise the income and profit from their commercial ventures. It is important that the Government ensure that the ground rules are such that those issues are dealt with, not as an afterthought, but as part of how we set about delivering the benefits of the new technology.

  1235
  I broadly welcome what the Secretary of State said about the analogue turn-off. However, I believe that one difficulty remains in the path of delivering an early turn-off of analogue. We must first ensure that it is not the same 95 per cent. who receive digital television and that, in a few years time, my constituents do not have to watch digital Yorkshire Television.
  One of the great difficulties in rolling out digital services is that they must co-exist with analogue services. Anyone who has ever looked at an engineering map showing the overlap of the different transmitters in my part of the world will understand the genuine problems that the engineers had in trying to erect extra relay masts to deal with the technical problems of providing a full range of programmes in west Norfolk. Those problems arose from the fact that analogue television interferes with other analogue transmitters, and engineers must be careful to separate frequencies of adjacent transmitters.
  As digital television is rolled out, west Norfolk is low down the priority list for the same reason. Until analogue stations are turned off, the options for turning on digital transmitters are substantially reduced. We must be wary of the fact that, unless we encourage early turn-off of analogue television, perhaps on a regional, step-by-step basis, we will restrict the possibility of covering the whole nation with the new digital services. It is a chicken-and-egg situation.
  There will be financial opportunities for the commercial and public service exploitation of the frequency space that will be released as analogue television is turned off, which could also provide the Government with income. The roll-out of digital television will provide greater commercial opportunities for companies to sell their subscription channels. We should ensure that some of that money is used to assist those who are in danger of becoming minorities in the new age as they have been for the past decade.
  I am concerned about some of the proposals that have been made. Every argument that we have heard this morning was used in support of the roll-out of the digital broadcasting revolution. Our constituents may not understand it, but analogue transmission is a huge waste of resources because it is inefficient. While we are stuck with analogue television, we are stuck in this century and are not moving into the next.
  The Government must do what they can to encourage the entrepreneurial private sector to deliver digital transmission, and in doing so to address minority interests. Why on earth is Davies suggesting that a special tax should be imposed? I have yet to understand the logic of encouraging a good idea by increasing its cost through the Government's approach to the funding of a public service need. When we wanted people to use unleaded petrol, we made it cheaper for them to do so. The price of petrol may be increasing, but we made sure that the differential favoured unleaded.
  We have yet to find out how the financing of the BBC through the licence fee will work in practice. The idea of making the priciest that which we want to encourage is turning logic upside down. There is much to be said for offering free digital licences to pensioners from the outset and having a lower licence fee. That makes more sense. I hope that the Government will have no truck with taxing a new development that we are trying to encourage and speed up.
  1236
  I want to say something about the BBC, as it is an important issue at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton takes a jaundiced view of the BBC and emphasises some aspects that have merited attention in the past but which, in the past decade, have been addressed in substantial measure. I do not think that it is fair to expect the BBC to behave in the same way as a capitalist entrepreneur on the convergence issue.
  The BBC should be more accountable for the areas into which it moves public resources. I am pleased that the Secretary of State intends to ensure that the financing of the BBC will be examined dispassionately. For pensioners in particular, the licence fee is a large portion of their meagre income. It is much less affordable for them than it is for those of us who are in employment or in younger age groups, who value the services that they receive and will pay the larger subscriptions required to enjoy the greater choice available.
  It is important that we understand the financing of the BBC, and that we look for efficiency and cut out waste and bureaucracy. I want to encourage the digital revolution, but it would be dreadful to lose the BBC: that would be too high a price to pay. It has as substantial a future as it has had a past. What it does in the future may, in some respects, be different from what it has done in the past. There are new ways of delivering services through the internet, or through digital or interactive television. The BBC may not perhaps be at the forefront of that new technology, but we must not prevent it from moving into those areas with the same ethos as it has had in the past for quality provision and for addressing the needs of minority interests that may be neglected in the commercial domain.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will carefully consider the suggestion that I made in my private Member's Bill of imposing on the industry a universal service obligation. If he were to spell out now his intentions for 2002, it could alter the lay-out, the placing of masts and the use of frequencies. If we knew where we were going, we might take a different path from that which we would have taken had we not known where the end point was. If the end point is to be a universal service obligation—which I believe it should be—the quicker the industry knows that, the more effective it will be in delivering it.
  If we give the industry the target of 95 per cent., the danger is that it will become expensive to cover the other 5 per cent., and we will have to do things differently from the way we would have done them had we known what the position was from the outset. That is what happened with analogue. Early decision and guidance from the Government are important, although I accept that the Secretary of State has been wise in taking a cautious, step-by-step approach.
  11.48 am
  Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the Secretary of State's sensible and thoughtful speech—it seems a long time ago now—and I am glad to see that he is still in the Chamber to hear contributions from hon. Members. I am struck by the degree of common purpose across the Chamber. In particular, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made useful contributions.
  New vistas are opening up, and the potential that digital television and radio offers is substantial: whether it is high-definition television, wide-screen pictures,

  1237
  CD-quality sound, video on demand or the era of convergence, to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Gorton. Although I welcome the conditions that the Secretary of State has set—94.4 per cent. of households being able to receive a digital signal, the necessary equipment being affordable to all and 95 per cent. of households having access to digital television—I query that last criterion, as I did when I intervened in his speech. I am not convinced that rendering the televisions of 1.25 million households obsolete at a stroke will be acceptable.
  The Secretary of State said that he expected the last 5 per cent. to receive direct help from the broadcasters to change over. Frankly, I am not convinced that that will happen, unless the Government require it. The last 5 per cent. are likely to be the poorest in society. They are the least attractive to advertisers, so there will be no incentive for anyone to help those 5 per cent. unless the Government require it.
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: The point that the hon. Gentleman is missing is that the value of the analogue channels will be limitless. They will be worth billions of pounds. I suspect that, if the industry realises that it is being blocked from being able to use those because of 5 per cent. of people, it will find an easy way to get them new television sets.
  Mr. Baker: I accept that there is commercial pressure in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, I think that the Government will have to intervene to ensure that all persons in this country have access to digital television. It will not happen by market forces.
  I make it plain on behalf of the Liberal Democrats that we are not in favour of the digital poll tax—the £24 supplement that has been suggested in the recent Gavyn Davies report. The BBC has enough money to pay for its digital services itself. We have heard how it is awash with money in certain respects. In 1996, it told a Committee of Members of Parliament that it would fund the lion's share of its digital investment from increased efficiency and the contribution from its commercial arm. Since then, it has received above-inflation increases in the licence fee. The 1998–99 report and accounts show that it has £235 million in the bank.
  There is no question but that the £24 supplement is not required. Furthermore, as other Members have made clear, it would act as a disincentive to take up the technology. In 1996, John Birt told the Select Committee on National Heritage that it would be "a tax on innovation". It is the only time this morning when I shall agree with him. I hope that the Government will not go towards the digital poll tax. It would be entirely wrong for all sorts of reasons, and quite unnecessary.

  I pick up a point that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made—I think it was him; I hope it was—about subtitles. [Interruption.] He is shaking his head. Perhaps it was the hon. Member for East Surrey. According to the Broadcasters Audience Research Board, 5 million people rely on subtitles for television programmes, but digital satellite and cable channels are not required to subtitle at all, and digital terrestrial is required to introduce subtitles only at a very slow rate over a number of years.
  1238
  If we are to see benefits from digital television, that issue will need to be addressed by the Secretary of State. I do not think that commercial pressures will achieve that. The Government will have to intervene.
  The Secretary of State referred to the BBC's duty to provide a quality benchmark. It is a sensible comment and I concur with it, but there is a potential problem. As the range of services from digital television and range of providers increases, that necessarily lessens the BBC's market share; it would be extraordinary if it did not. John Birt himself suggested that the market share of BBC1 and BBC2 would drift down over the years.
  If that happens, it will put pressure on the licence fee and more and more of our constituents will say, "Why should we pay our licence fee for a market supplier that is now capturing less of the market?" That, in turn, will put pressure on quality programming because the BBC will be tempted to respond by going down market and getting more and more game shows: more and more Jeremy Beadle-type programmes. That would be an entirely wrong response. The position would be very difficult. Politicians will be required to defend the BBC if it sees a decline in market share but sticks to quality programming. There will be pressures to resist.
  The BBC is like the European Union. It is necessary, we are all much enriched by it, but that does not stop me feeling exasperated by some of its idiocies and extravagances on occasions. For example, Sir Christopher Bland has admitted that the BBC spends £22 million year on consultants. He said:
  "I don't think that we have any need to be ashamed of that number."
  I wonder whether it is a case of what the consultants are looking into, because I am not aware of their producing any recommendations that have improved the BBC greatly.
  Then we have the common excesses, which are indefensible. John Birt's farewell party was referred to in passing by the right hon. Member for Gorton. On 1 November, 150 BBC worthies will be given a jamboree, to cost £50,000—that is equivalent to 495 licence fees—to be held at Hampton Court palace. He is, I understand, to receive a pay-off of £150,000, which is equivalent to 1,485 licence fees, as a golden goodbye.
  The evening will start with a reception in the Great Watching chamber, which was used by King Henry VIII, perhaps not inappropriately, to entertain his barons. The charge for renting the room is substantial: £7,050 per evening, with an additional fee of £45 for each guest after the first 100. Catering is extra, needless to say.
  The main event will take place in the Great hall, costing £10,575 per evening. It is a lovely hall, decorated with Flemish tapestries. Of course, the BBC Symphony orchestra and the BBC Singers will be on hand to entertain the guests.
  That is all very nice, but it is all licence fee payers' money. I get letters from constituents saying that £101 is a lot for a licence fee and that we should look at how the money is spent. A huge amount is being spent on a farewell bash for John Birt.
  Governors' pay in 1999 is £264,000; that is equivalent to 2,614 licence fees. Pay checks for executive committee people total £3,051,000 for 1999; that is equivalent to 30,200 licence fees. Sir John Birt's pay topped £400,000 this year after a generous increase in his salary of 7.2 per cent., well above the rate of inflation.

  1239
  I am staggered by some of salaries at the BBC. John Birt's is £415,000. Colin Browne, the head of public relations, receives £210,000; he seems to have failed miserably in his job, at least as far as convincing me is concerned. Patricia Hodgson, head of strategy, receives £207,000. Margaret Salmon, head of personnel, receives £216,000. None of them is a broadcaster or journalist producing programmes. They are management. They are the ones who occupy Broadcasting house and have pushed out all the journalists, who are somewhere in White City now.
  Broadcasting house is singularly inappropriately named, in that there are no virtually no broadcasters in it any more; they rattle around if one goes there. The right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned the chit-chat machine.
  Of course, we can be reassured because the BBC says in its statement of promises to viewers and listeners, 1999–2000:
  "We promise to offer the best value for money. The BBC will be run efficiently in your interests."
  So that is all right then. We need not worry about all the excesses, because the BBC is being run in our interest with no waste of money.
  I am pleased that Greg Dyke, who will shortly be taking over, seems to be sceptical about some of the expenditure. He is reported to be selling the country mansion used by staff for weekend breaks and cheap wedding receptions, and targeting limousines for BBC executives that cost up to £1 million a year—that is, 9,900 licence fees. He might also ask himself why John Birt's wife has a 4.6 litre Range Rover at the expense of the BBC. I hope that such grotesque expenditure will be cut.
  Many of us want to defend the BBC. We strain to do so because we believe in it, but it would be a lot easier without such indefensible expenditure. The BBC needs to provide good value for money. If it is going to produce quality programming with a declining market share, it needs to avoid being open to attack on the issues that I have just attacked it on.
  We might also look at BBC News 24—so called because that is the number of viewers that it normally has at any given time. It is a grotesque waste of money. I am profoundly irritated—as many hon. Members may be—when I find that BBC local radio stations are run on a shoestring. There is no money for anything in BBC local radio these days, yet money is being poured down the drain on BBC News 24.
  I am also worried about the BBC World Service, which does not come under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport because it is funded by the Foreign Office. Despite reasonably helpful funding from the Government, the World Service has suffered unacceptable cuts that do nothing to improve the image of Britain abroad.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman and I share a BBC local radio service. Will he confirm that, despite the straitened times in which the station lives, it found time to give him a starring role as a teddy bear in a Christmas pantomime special?
  Mr. Baker: I can confirm that. It shows how far down market the BBC has gone.
  Accountability of BBC finances is crucial. There is a case for giving the National Audit Office a formal role in ensuring that the BBC gives value for money. When I had
  1240
  a rather nice dinner with BBC bosses some time ago at our party conference, they did not welcome the idea, saying that it would infringe their independence. It should be possible for the National Audit Office to be seen to be independent of the Government, yet still ensure that the BBC gives good value for money. [Interruption.] You will be pleased to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that mobile phone was upstairs, not in the Chamber. The Secretary of State may want to wait until later in the year, but I should like him to respond to the argument for auditing the BBC through the National Audit Office, because £2 billion a year is a lot of public money to go unaccounted for.
  The Secretary of State also mentioned "News at Ten". There was a deal—almost a Faustian pact—on how it might be replaced. It was a very good way of getting news across to people who might not want to see it. It became an institution. ITV has thrown that away and put nothing satisfactory in its place. In mid-February, "News at Ten" had 8 million viewers. The "Evening News", at the unfriendly time of 6.30, is down to 5.25 million—almost 3 million viewers down. The "Nightly News" is a joke—not in its journalistic standards, but in the commitment that ITV gives to it. It is broadcast at a variable time around 11 pm and has only once made it into the nation's top 70 programmes. I hope that the review to which the Secretary of State referred will conclude that ITV has not met its side of the bargain and that "News at Ten" must be reinstated. That is the only logical conclusion.
  The Secretary of State also briefly mentioned the important issue of media ownership. If we are to have a free, fair and responsible press, it is important that we do not have one person or group controlling too much of the media. Hon. Members on both sides have argued that supermarkets should not have too great a market share, because that distorts the retail market. The same happens in the media. People rely on the printed media in particular for news and views and to help them assess their voting intentions. It is unhealthy that News International controls 35 per cent. of this country's circulation.
  I also find the apparent close relations between Rupert Murdoch and the Government—particularly the Prime Minister—unhealthy. I wonder why Mr. Murdoch, who is on record as criticising and insulting the Dalai Lama, was present at the luncheon for President Jiang Zemin. While demonstrators outside were being hustled off the street for having free Tibet flags, the Prime Minister was with Mr. Murdoch and President Jiang in No. 10 Downing street. That is not healthy for the country or for media control. I did not mind the Prime Minister going to meet Mr. Murdoch on the other side of the world down in Australia before he was elected, but he should have offered lots of promises and then stripped him of his press control a week after coming to power, or at least reduced his market penetration.
  In any case, the Prime Minister did not do that. [Interruption.] It is perfectly proper to suggest that a maximum level of media ownership should apply to one individual or group and that if that level is exceeded we will run into danger as private interests take over from public interests. Capping Mr. Murdoch would have been a sensible and democratic policy and I am sorry that it did not happen. We have to make sure that News International does not wield too much power in this country. I feel that perhaps it does, and I would be interested to hear the Secretary of State's comments.

  1241
  Finally, let me say a word about violence on television and censorship, a subject referred to briefly by the hon. Member for East Surrey. People are rightly worried about that, particularly because of the potential for children to be adversely affected by violence and sex on television.
  I am astonished that violence in context in a programme often arouses antagonism and opposition from individuals and groups while very little is said about the constant violence in mainstream programmes, usually emanating from America. Personally, I find nothing more offensive than gun culture and a stream of programmes showing people shooting each other, which seems to be the main fare on American television, along with car chases. I find that much more offensive than a single act of violence used in the context of a programme to make a particular point artistically. I should like to hear the Secretary of State's response on that.
  It has been useful to hear what hon. Members have had to say. There is a degree of unanimity across the Chamber and I very much hope that we will continue in that spirit, making sure that we embrace the new and get the most from it without throwing out what is best about what we already have.
  12.7 pm
  Barbara Follett: It is fitting that we should be debating the future of broadcasting at the end of the century which saw its introduction and at the end of the consultation period on the future funding of the service which still leads and defines broadcasting in this country—the BBC. Whether the BBC will continue to lead and define broadcasting in the next century and the next millennium depends to some extent on the decisions that will be taken over the next two months.
  Those decisions have to be informed by the three criteria set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the beginning of the debate: affordability, accessibility and quality. I should like to deal with them in reverse order because I believe that the quality of the BBC's programmes sets it apart from other national and international providers. My constituents and I wish to see that quality protected and enhanced in the coming years.
  Quality used to be synonymous with the BBC. In most cases, it still is. The service is impartial, intelligent and informed and has reported and relayed the defining moments of the past seven decades to the people of this country and many others across the world.
  My mother remembers her parents tuning in on crystal and cat's whisker sets in Newcastle-under-Lyme at the beginning of the century and the wonder of the instant news that it brought them. Almost everyone over 65 in Britain today remembers hearing Chamberlain announce on the BBC:
  "this country is, therefore, at war with Germany".
  I remember my father standing in front of a radio one cold February morning in 1952 to hear that the King was dead, and a year later and 6,000 miles away I remember kneeling and pressing my ear up against the bakelite and cloth of a very old radio in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia to hear the crackling commentary on the coronation of his daughter.
  1242
  It was the BBC that I turned to while living in South Africa during the dark days of the apartheid regime. It gave, as no other service did, an impartial and informed view of the situation in that troubled area. No wonder the then regime did its best to jam it for years.
  The BBC brought me other things: the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, both banned in South Africa in the 1960s, and faithful adaptations of the books and plays that I studied at school and university, such as "The Forsyte Saga" and "I, Claudius". All were brought to life on the screen, and all were funded by the taxpayer. The BBC was the NHS for the mind.
  When I returned to Britain in 1978, the BBC was a wonderful way back into a world in which genuine debate was encouraged, rather than squashed. In the past few years, the service has carried the culture of excellence into the development of BBC News 24, BBC Knowledge and BBC Online.
  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of some of the BBC's other services. The original three "I"s—impartial, informed and intelligent—are in danger of being replaced with a new trio; impatient, interruptive and imitative. This is particularly true in the provision of news, and particularly at a regional level. I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) that one often gets a threadbare service there.
  The imitative, impatient and interruptive quality is not absent from national programmes. Regional radio—with its gaggle of only-just-restrained shock jocks, misinforming and insulting listeners on endless call-ins—is the worst offender. Here the impatient and interruptive tendencies are at their most obvious and irritating.
  Anyone who has tuned into "Today" recently will have heard numerous examples of the impatient and interruptive tendency, and of impatience and interruption getting in the way of information. I do not understand why the BBC wastes money on getting two scientists to debate the pros and cons of GM foods, and then insists that Professor X answers a complex question in 15 seconds and keeps interrupting Professor Y while he or she tries to put forward their case. It is simply a waste of time, and means that the public are more baffled than informed by the exchange.
  Imitation rather than intelligence seems to govern electronic news-gathering, and those involved seem to be in awe of the print media. That is the only reason I can think of why they follow an agenda set by the print media. Why, when they have sound and pictures, are they so happy to stick slavishly to what has been in the print media, and simply amplify it?
  As a publicly funded service, the BBC has the leeway and the duty to investigate in depth matters of public concern, but it is not always doing this at present during peak viewing and listening hours. When I raised this matter with the BBC at a dinner during my party conference, I was told that there were programmes at 11 pm and 6 am. However, we want such programmes at 8 o'clock or 8.30 before we go out.
  I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's commitment to quality, and I urge him to commend the three "I"s to the viewers panel that he is setting up, in the hope that it will monitor their delivery closely. If it wants to retain its unique reputation and authority, the BBC must remain impartial, informative and, above all, intelligent.

  1243
  I welcome all that my right hon. Friend had to say on accessibility and I wish him well in his attempts to get all platforms to carry the free-to-air channels, digital or not. At present, my constituency—like those of other hon. Members—does not receive some of the free-to-air channels equally. Some 9,000 of my constituents cannot get BBC News 24 or the Parliamentary Channel. I am the only one who regrets the lack of the Parliamentary Channel, but many regret the lack of BBC News 24.
  Mr. Swayne: Given the number of viewers of BBC News 24, an increase in viewing numbers in the hon. Lady's constituency might have a significant impact on the number of people who watch it.
  Barbara Follett: It might indeed.
  Accessibility, whether regional, geographic or platform-based, must be taken into account by both the Government and the television companies. I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State well in that endeavour. Price is the other factor in accessibility. My right hon. Friend's commitment to affordability is commendable but I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), feel that pensioners deserve special treatment.
  The case is made stronger by the fact that pensioners in sheltered housing and nursing homes already receive concessions. The unequal treatment is felt sharply by pensioners in my constituency who are also extremely concerned by the tendency of some commercial channels to screen major sporting fixtures only on digital. Given the limited reach of digital television, that is truly bad for some people.
  An elderly gentleman recently came up to me on a visit to sheltered housing and told me that, for the past 10 years, he had forgone cigarettes in order to subscribe to both of Sky's sports channels, and was outraged that some of the most important football matches were being shown only on digital, which no amount of abstinence would allow him to afford. The divide between information rich and information poor could widen if the licence fee is raised without concessionary fees being introduced for those on low incomes, especially pensioners.
  We are on the brink of another communications revolution. If it is to benefit the consumer as well as the provider of broadcast services it must be carefully monitored and managed; if it is, the future of broadcasting in Britain is bright; if not, it is bleak. No one wants a two-tier broadcasting service. We must take care to prevent that.
  12.16 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), whose speech was lucid and faultlessly delivered. I confess to one disappointment, however. In the Register of Members' Interests, she lists her position as a "communications consultant", and I was rather hoping, given the references that many hon. Members have made to the amount that the BBC spends on consultancy fees, that she would enlighten us as to what that money might be spent on; but I am afraid that I am none the wiser as to what a communications consultant might do than I was when she began.
  1244
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) gave us the benefit of his technical expertise in engineering in describing the technology platforms available. He raised the question whether the television or the personal computer would win the battle for the hearts, minds and, indeed, activities of the future. I offer him a third possibility: that it will be neither, that people will go on living their lives much as they do now and that the whole digital revolution has been as over-hyped as the other revolutions of the past 10 to 15 years.
  I remember being told how cable television would change my life. It did, but only in the sense of being a minor inconvenience while the road was dug up.
  Mr. Browne: Would the hon. Gentleman include in his over-hyped revolutions the commonsense revolution?
  Mr. Swayne: No. I am talking about common sense rather than over-hyping.
  I had much sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, but I found his vision of the future profoundly shocking. The thought of having a film e-mailed to me so that I can watch it at home instead of being able to avail myself of the services of a babysitter and go with my wife to the bright lights of Bournemouth to watch it at the cinema strikes me as an unacceptable reduction in the quality of life. I could not possibly countenance that.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman has a good point about the changes over the past 10 to 15 years. When video first appeared, everyone predicted that it would mean the death of the cinema, but precisely the opposite has been the case. Cinema attendance—at the bright lights in Bournemouth—has risen by 150 per cent. over 10 years, which proves that there can be a synergy between new technology available in the home and traditional forms of entertainment outside it.
  Mr. Swayne: I thank the Secretary of State for that lucid exposition, with which I wholeheartedly agree.
  I agree with almost everything that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said, and the way in which he said it, but I differ with him on one or two minor points. He began by telling us that television represented one of the greatest educational opportunities, so I ask him to repeat an experiment that I conduct from time to time with my children. I ask them to read a story book for half an hour—to master a chapter, say—and then to tell me, coherently and in chronological order, about what they have read. I then ask them to watch a television programme for half an hour and do the same with that. The difference in the results is instructive, and serves as a powerful corrective for those who over-hype the educational possibilities of television.
  Some examination has taken place, especially by the right hon. Member for Gorton, of the BBC charter. Undoubtedly when it was granted, it required the BBC to provide a broadcasting service, and that was appropriate, because there was no service then. That is no longer so. Therefore, it is proper to ask whether we still require the BBC to provide a full broadcasting service.
  Should we not be more concerned that the BBC provides what other broadcasters cannot, in terms of the quality of programming? In that respect, I was encouraged by what

  1245
  the Secretary of State said about stretching audiences and raising their horizons. The right hon. Gentleman said that the BBC should do that "a little", but I think that it should do it a lot. It is nonsense for the BBC to pursue ratings. Its financial structure emancipates it from having to do so. That is precisely why it can afford to be innovative, to experiment and to concentrate on raising the sights and stretching the imagination of its audiences.
  The way in which the BBC competes with commercial broadcasters is undesirable. I draw particular attention to local radio in that respect. Why, in the south-east of England—or, indeed, elsewhere—does the BBC provide a service that competes with other local radio stations? When I tune in to the local stations as I motor along, it is extraordinary how often I hear repeated the jingles telling me which station I am listening to. They are necessary; without the jingles one would have no idea which station one was listening to, because they are all the same.
  Why is the BBC spending money, which should be used elsewhere, to provide a service identical to those provided by the market?
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I must dispute that, because, in the north-east of England, the local BBC station has a substantial audience, is well appreciated and deals with local matters. If one travels across to Cumbria or to Scotland one finds entirely different BBC local radio stations, with an entirely different agenda. Our local BBC station competes extremely well with Metro FM, which is one of the most successful commercial local radio stations in the country.
  Mr. Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out, but I suggest that other commercial stations would probably provide a similar service. I remind him that my constituency stretches from Lymington, on the coast, to eight miles south of Salisbury, and, within an area of that size, there are different local radio services competing with one another and covering different local issues. None the less, between each zone, the output of the competitors is remarkable similar—so much so that they have to rely on jingles to remind the listener that there are several different stations.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) raised an effective point about the declining standards of decency and morality on the broadcast media. We all receive letters complaining about the decline in standards, and surveys have shown that, over the past two years, public disquiet about standards on television has increased considerably. In particular, I have received a number of letters consequent upon some salacious, late-night programmes that have been more concerned with chasing ratings than anything else.
  The Almighty, in his wisdom, did create man with a recreational interest in sex. An inevitable consequence is that that appetite will be addressed, and it will tend to be addressed on television late at night. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey pointed out that there is an off switch, and many people would do well to use it more often. He also, in an intervention in the speech made by the Secretary of State, referred to the possibility of teenagers' television screens going blank as a consequence of the change from analogue to digital. It
  1246
  might be appropriate if teenagers' television screens—and, indeed, those of younger children—went blank a little more often.
  It is entirely appropriate that we should discuss the problems caused when adults do not take an effective interest and make informed decisions about what vulnerable young people and children watch. We must consider whether it is appropriate for the state to take on a greater role in protecting them. It is no good shying away from the word censorship, because that is what I mean. Censorship exists, and the only question is whether we have got right the balance of what we censor. I suggest, in the case of some late-night television programmes, that we have got the balance wrong and should re-examine it. We cannot rely on the off switch alone.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is making a compelling point well. However, does he agree that public attitudes to the issue can be more complicated than they at first appear? Somebody came up to me not long ago and said, "I want to know what you are going to do about all this filth on television." I asked him what he meant, and he said, "All the disgusting filth and sex, and all those films they have on night after night." I told him that he did not have to watch it, and he thought for a minute and said, "Yeah, that's what my wife says."
  Mr. Swayne: His wife is right, and I am certain that I would get fewer letters complaining about the subject if my constituents used their off switches a little more. However, it is right for us to take account of the fact that many children have televisions in their rooms and are not protected properly by parental influence. Many parents are feckless, but to what extent should the state step into that gap? I shrink from interference, because I believe in freedom of speech and I do not like regulations that tell people what they should or should not do. However, we should exercise more care, because the current balance is wrong.
  The hon. Member for Lewes drew the House's attention to programmes that rely almost exclusively on violence and the exposition of violence for their dramatic effect. I agree with that, but a more insidious and troubling problem is caused less by drama and more by soap opera. The problem arises when scenes of physical violence—and of violence of language and of sexual behaviour—are insinuated into ordinary scenes of daily life. That practice gives the impression that such violence is normal and acceptable. The programmes involved are not protected by the watershed. They go out early in the day, and can be seen by children when they come home from school—indeed, in many respects, they are designed for that audience.
  It is in such soap operas that the pervasive corrosion and corruption is evident. They often appear innocuous, but that only makes it more difficult to exercise the discipline and authority of using the off switch.
  When our constituents write to us with their concerns, it is not acceptable to tell them that Ministers cannot take decisions on those matters because that power has been handed over to the independent organisations whose duty is to maintain standards, and that complaints and representations should be made to those bodies. Our constituents' letters tell us that people consider that those

  1247
  watchdogs have failed, and that they want politicians to do something about the problem. They tell us that the system is not working, and that they require their representatives to act on their behalf.
  Members of Parliament have a proper concern about low turnouts at elections, and all sorts of extraordinary procedures are being put in place to reverse that trend. We like to exercise our minds on the enormously important political questions of the day, such as whether Britain is to be ruled by Parliament or by a bureaucracy in Brussels, but our constituents are more worried about what is on the television. If they get no response when they write to us with their complaints, they will get the impression that there is no point in voting, as nothing will change no matter how they vote. We must address the legitimate concerns of the growing number of people worried about standards of morality and decency on television—otherwise, we can expect only their contempt and derision.
  About two and a quarter hours of religious programmes are put out every week by ITV stations, but they have been shifted to later slots, away from peak time. In addition, the output of religious programmes on BBC1 and BBC2 has decreased by one third over the past 10 years—a period in which the BBC's total programme output has increased by more than 50 per cent. There has therefore been a huge reduction in the total output of religious programmes output and in the amount of prime time devoted to such programmes. That trend is accelerating, as religious output has fallen by 15 per cent. in the last year alone.
  The BBC strategy document entitled "2000 and Beyond" makes virtually no mention of religious broadcasting at all, and neither does the corporation's most recent annual report. It is therefore entirely inappropriate for the BBC to have any role in the regulation of religious broadcasting. We should remove BBC control over appointments to the secretariat of the Central Religious Advisory Committee, which should be entirely independent. Will the Minister address that point?
  Religious broadcasters do not need the BBC and commercial radio stations to do their job. They should be able to get on with it themselves, but the law prevents that. As the Secretary of State said, the Broadcasting Act 1990 prevents religious broadcasters from having anything but a local radio analogue licence. It is difficult for anyone to get hold of one of those, and it is therefore unsurprising that there is only one religious broadcaster using analogue radio—Premiere, in London. There are also the two national and excellent United Christian Broadcasters' channels on satellite. However, outside London, one cannot hear Christian radio unless one possesses satellite equipment or a cable licence. That is the practical consequence of the law.
  The Secretary of State said that the digital revolution would bring a huge opportunity for increased choice, and I welcome that. Religious broadcasters should be emancipated from the law and allowed to take advantage of that. However, the Broadcasting Act 1996 makes the situation even worse. Religious broadcasters are excluded from holding any territorial digital licence. Religious broadcasting is flourishing in Europe, but the practical effect of our policy is to ban all religious output, Christian and other. That is a clear breach of the liberty of freedom of speech. David Pannick QC has given the opinion that our law breaches the European convention on human rights. The Minister should address that point.
  1248
  Religious broadcasting is being increasingly excluded from mainstream television channels, and the Education Act 1944 is being ignored. I recently received a circular from my local authority which, though full of low-grade sociological gobbledegook, effectively said that it could no longer enforce the 1944 Act's provisions. I strongly suspect that my generation was the last to be taught the faith at school. There is therefore all the more reason to fill the vacuum with religious broadcasting, but we have banned it.
  There is increasing disquiet about moral standards on television, and that could clearly be addressed by religious broadcasting, but the practical implication of our policy is that it has been banned. Elderly people find it increasingly difficult to go to church, and they could be satisfied by religious broadcasting. It need not be denominational or sectarian. Take the example of the United Christian Broadcasters; the output is not inflammatory, and it provides healing and reconciliation. A survey of listeners in the island of Ireland, which crosses the sectarian divide, has made that clear. There are no grounds for disquiet on denominational grounds.
  Mr. Baker: How would the hon. Gentleman give extra access to religions of all denominations while not allowing airspace to pseudo-religious organisations that might be unwelcome? Is it his view on freedom of speech that everyone should have access to the airwaves?
  Mr. Swayne: My view is most definitely in favour of freedom of speech. As I am a member of a mainstream Christian denomination, I should prefer a particular type of output, but that would be improper. We must accept that it is incorrect simply to make it illegal for any licence—national or digital—to be held. The secondary issues arise as a result of that legal ban. We may impose certain licensing conditions on breadth of output or whatever, but we must first consider the law that prohibits religious broadcasters from holding a licence at all.
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting will be assisted in this matter by the views of the House. Earlier in this Session, when my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) introduced a ten-minute Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and I ensured that the House had an opportunity to divide on the matter. The vote was 138 to 9 in favour of allowing our hon. Friend to introduce his Bill. That is a powerful demonstration of the views of the House.
  The Minister is not responsible for the current state of the law, but she does have the power to alter it. I hope that she has the will to do so, because there is a strong and vocal constituency which deserves to be heard. That group realises that it is appropriate to deal with that matter at a time when we have a Prime Minister who openly professes his religious faith, a Home Secretary who professes his religious faith and a Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who also professes a religious faith. It would be difficult to say that the matter will not be addressed; if it cannot be dealt with now, when can we deal with it?
  I am grateful to have this opportunity to speak in a wide-ranging debate, but the House will be aware that Second Reading debates can also be wide ranging. I suggest to the Minister that we should hold more such debates, so that we can remedy the problems that we are discussing.
  12.42 pm
  Mr. John Grogan: The Americans take about two months to do it; the papacy takes about one month to do it; the British Government do it brutally during an evening; but the BBC proposes to do it over the course of a year. The exercise to which I refer is the changing of the chief executive of the organisation. That length of time is likely to prove irritating and too long for those of us who are great friends of the BBC—I chair the all-party group on the BBC—and who agree with the polls undertaken for the Davies panel. Those polls reveal that 50 per cent. of people think that the BBC represents good value and more than 50 per cent. think that it is good for Britain's image abroad.
  Taking such a long time will not help managerial efficiency and coherence during the vital few months that lie ahead for the BBC. If Greg Dyke wants to introduce changes, the sooner he gains total control, the better. I point out to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) that John Birt does a good job in many ways. Without producer choice, the BBC would probably not have survived; £600 million has been saved while John Birt was in charge. However, it must be a case of, "The king is dead; long live the king." The millennium would be a good time to go, because the BBC and its programmes will, once again, be at the centre of the nation's attention—perhaps even the centre of international attention.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) accused the Davies panel of being obsessed with the BBC. That is not an accusation that anyone would make against him. He talked about ideas popping into the heads of BBC executives. He reaffirmed his view that the BBC should be privatised, and said that it was appropriate that "Walking with Dinosaurs" was being shown at present. Let us consider a typical Monday night on the BBC of a few weeks ago. Would anything on BBC television or radio have tempted him away from the internet?
  As well as "Walking with Dinosaurs", there was Jeremy Isaacs's "Millennium" and "EastEnders", which is a good example of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refers to as "making the popular good". "The Major Years" might have tempted my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton later that night—if any programme is a good candidate for continual repeats on all BBC channels, that is it. He could have tuned into BBC Radio 5 and heard classic commentary on Premier League football, or into Radio 4 and heard a classic play, the like of which is not broadcast on any other public sector radio channel in Europe. He could even have tuned into BBC local radio, which indeed has a distinctive voice. In some parts of the country, it is the only speech-based radio broadcasting available locally.
  I found annexe 8 of the Davies report fascinating: it sets out in economic terms the case for public sector broadcasting and for the BBC. Its four points are based on the concepts of public good and market failure. The report states that public broadcasting services should:
  "act as a counterweight to the private concentration of ownership … provide a centre of excellence which both makes and broadcasts programmes … be large enough to influence the market and so act as the guarantor of policy",
  and
  "widen choice both now and in the future by complementing the market through the pursuit of public service purposes."
  1250
  It seems to me that that role will be as relevant in the digital world as it was in the analogue world.
  I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called in consultants to examine carefully the BBC's figures. When that exercise is complete, the case for an increase in BBC resources will remain. Whereas the commercial sector increased its resources by 10 per cent. a year during the 1990s, largely though subscription television, the BBC managed only a 1 per cent. increase. In the early 1990s, the BBC had 40 per cent. of broadcasting revenue, whereas it will have only 20 per cent. in 2008, according to the Davies panel.
  There is a case for the BBC to invest in new digital services and to be given the money and the freedom to experiment. BBC Online is an extremely successful experiment, which receives more hits than any other website in Europe. BBC Knowledge has tremendous potential and there is a clear case for a BBC children's channel to counter the cartoons shown continuously on many of the satellite children's channels.
  On BBC News 24, there is a case for the BBC to use its news-gathering resources to produce a news channel, not least because Back Benchers such as myself are more likely to get on that than on mainstream channels. Where BBC News 24 competes with Sky News, with viewers having access to both, the viewing ratio is about 50:50. In addition, it is extremely important that BBC World News continues as a counterweight to CNN in world broadcasting markets.
  I do not go along with the Davies report recommendation on the digital licence fee. There is little in the report about likely evasion rates or the additional costs of collecting such a fee. It hardly seems worth levying the new licence for only a limited number of years, as the report suggests. It would have a marginal deterrent effect on viewers taking up digital television by giving them an incentive to wait until the digital fee was merged back into the main licence fee. However, unless the BBC develops digital services of quality, the take-up of digital will never reach the 95 per cent. target, because only a limited number of people will get digital for sports, movies and other specialist services.
  There is a strong case for additional resources and, if that case is proved by the Secretary of State's consultants, the licence fee should be raised. The licence fee is not regarded in the same way as the poll tax was: rates of evasion of the television licence fee are decreasing, suggesting that it is generally accepted, albeit grudgingly. An opportunity to increase the fee may shortly become available: the previous Government's licence fee settlement ensured that the fee would decrease by 3.5 per cent. in real terms over the next two years, but the new Labour Government need not remain committed to that settlement. The Davies report spoke of a £5 increase in the licence fee for two years as an alternative to the digital fee, and that proposal should be considered.
  I want pensioners to be exempted from any licence fee increase. That would cost about £25 million to £30 million, which I would call a judicious use of public expenditure, rather than a pre-election bribe, as a similar proposal was described earlier. If the Government are to make good Labour's commitment to enabling pensioners to enjoy a share in the nation's rising earnings, we have to look for ways to do that. It would be very much in the

  1251
  spirit of the winter bonus if pensioners were to receive a £10 or £15 voucher to compensate for any increase in the licence fee.
  I disagree fundamentally with the privatisation of BBC Resources and BBC Worldwide. BBC Resources is the craft base of the entire television industry. Many technicians who are trained through BBC Resources go on to do good work in the independent sector. BBC Resources does not make a profit at present—although it is moving more into profit—so it could be privatised effectively only if business from the BBC were guaranteed for many years to come. The costs to the BBC are likely to rise in a seller's market.
  BBC Worldwide is a good example of public enterprise efficiency within the BBC. Some £80 million now comes from BBC Worldwide, which is an increase from £50 million a few years ago. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton must spell it out: is he in favour of the BBC undertaking commercial activities? It is a question of selling off the family silver.
  Many hon. Members mentioned sport during the debate. I was surprised that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton seemed to show no interest in a decision that will affect the football teams in his city, which must be the greatest footballing city in the country at the moment. According to today's Financial Times, Premier League rights—both live and recorded—may be sold exclusively to BSkyB for the first time. Several BSkyB executives are apparently having a cosy chat with two of the rich clubs in an attempt to stitch up the deal.
  Such an arrangement would be absolutely catastrophic for many football supporters up and down the country who would be denied any access to Premier League matches. The Secretary of State said that he will review the A and B lists of protected events. Programmes on the A list must be shown live on terrestrial television and there must be access to recorded highlights of programmes on the B list. If the Premier League decides to go down the route of selling all its football rights to the highest bidder, there is a case for putting Premier League football on the B list. That would separate live and recorded rights, and "Match of the Day" or its equivalent programmes would continue to be broadcast.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on extending protection for sporting events—the so-called "crown jewels"—to a majority of the population. The next football World cup will be shown in its entirety on terrestrial television. That protection came in the nick of time because World cup rights were sold for the first time not to the European Broadcasting Union but to a German media entrepreneur, Mr. Kirch. He will have to sell those rights to terrestrial television, which is a good thing. I urge the Secretary of State to consider the case of Premier League football.
  I think that some sports rights holders are realising for the first time that they will get a better deal overall if they allow at least some terrestrial coverage. For example, the Walker cup—which is an amateur event—was watched on BBC "Grandstand" by more people than the Ryder cup, which gained only 600,000 viewers live on Sky Sports. That has given the golfing authorities something to reflect upon.
  Sky Sports has extended the range of choice for the sports fan, and done a wonderful job with its technical presentation. ITV Sport has done well to bounce back in
  1252
  recent years to broadcast popular sports such as football, rugby, boxing and motor racing, which command high advertising rates. The BBC should continue to put both minority and crown jewel sports together in magazine programmes such as "Grandstand". The BBC has done a good job this year promoting athletics, and I am glad that Greg Dyke has listed sport as one of his priorities.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) about the importance of universal access to channels across platforms. As a Yorkshireman, I was sorry to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) say that north-west Norfolk is receiving Yorkshire regional news. My hon. Friend claimed that his constituents receive crime reports from Burnley. If that is true, the problem is very bad because Burnley is in Lancashire. The signal must be getting mixed up somewhere.
  I shall conclude by quoting Michael Grade on the subject of the BBC. A few weeks ago, he said:
  "The BBC is not so much an institution as an idea."
  That idea is public service broadcasting and we would do very well to preserve that in the digital world that lies ahead.
  12.55 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: I, too, thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary for State for the opportunity to debate this important issue. In common with other hon. Members, I welcome his remarks about many aspects of the matter, particularly the switch-over, as we are being encouraged to call it, from analogue to digital.
  I agree with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said. I enjoyed, as I usually do, the contribution of the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). In his own inimitable style, he put his finger on many issues that are important to our constituents. The common touch is much hyped, but he undoubtedly has it. However, in what by his normal standards could be described as a measured speech, he was long on problems but short on solutions.
  The challenge of how the state should intervene between inactive parents lounging in front of the television in their living room and their unsupervised teenage children channel-hopping in their bedroom has defeated me thus far in the debate, but perhaps the Minister will rise to it more effectively in summing up the debate.
  It is a particular honour to speak in the same debate as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Many of us are somewhat in awe of his comprehensive knowledge of these matters, which, when coupled with his eloquence, makes him a formidable advocate. Accordingly, it was with some trepidation that I anticipated speaking in his presence on this subject for the first time in the House. I fear that my less well-honed opinions may rattle his cage, and I suspect that I may shortly be the victim of one of his broadsides.

  1253
  Before I move on to a matter on which I may disagree with my right hon. Friend, I point out that I agree with him that the time for free television licences for pensioner households has arrived. We could debate whether that should be achieved by vouchers or by simply giving all pensioner households greater financial wherewithal—I should prefer the latter option, to preserve the BBC's independence—but in principle I support him.
  I also agree with my right hon. Friend and other hon. Friends that we should reject the digital licence fee, for the simple reason that it would not be accepted by the public. The move towards digital television cannot be compared with the transfer from monochrome to colour television. The public do not have sufficient knowledge to understand what they would get from digital television, and we may not achieve that level of knowledge in the foreseeable future. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Selby that, if the case for more money for the BBC stands up to independent scrutiny, we should just increase the licence fee.
  The debate about the future of broadcasting is timely. To reinforce the point that has already been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), I shall quote from the foreword to the independent review panel's report. It says that
  "we doubt whether many people have yet had their horizons lifted to the full potential of digital technology—limitless numbers of channels, full access to massive archives of programmes, the creation of 'virtual channels' to suit individual tastes, total portability of equipment, convergence between the web and broadcasting, convergence between both of these and personal communications, interactivity between households, programme makers and the commercial suppliers of all manner of consumer products, and no doubt a myriad of new applications which are as yet barely a glint in their inventor's eye.
  This qualifies without any doubt as the Fourth Broadcasting Revolution".
  At such a time of revolution in broadcasting it is appropriate that we debate, among other issues, the future of public service broadcasting. In this country, of course, that means the future of the BBC. I shall take up an opportunity presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, who referred to "Walking with Dinosaurs". It is fortunate, not unfortunate, for public service broadcasting, that that hugely successful BBC1 series should arrive on the scene now—for two reasons. First, it achieved the remarkable phenomenon of attracting an audience of almost 19 million people for a series of educational television programmes. In a persuasive opinion piece in the Evening Standard on Friday, David Aaronovitch concluded:
  "This one series is, in itself, an overwhelming argument for the retention of the BBC and the licence fee."
  That opinion piece was prompted by a shared experience of intellectual stimulation that the author had had with his child when watching the series with her. Perhaps I think that his piece was persuasive because I, too, underwent a similar experience with my children. I am sure that it was shared by countless millions of families throughout the UK as children and the BBC opened the eyes of parents and people of my generation to the magnificence of these giant creatures, which
  1254
  dominated the earth during the Triassic, Jurassic and cretaceous periods. Before I saw the programme, I did not even know about those periods.
  The second timely reason is the health warning that is implicit in the subject matter of the programmes. However prolific and influential in its heyday, no organism can be absolutely immune from the threat of extinction. Once vanished, it may be impossible to retain what has been lost.
  The evolution and survival of any organism is dependent on its natural environment and the predators it faces. "Walking with Dinosaurs" reminds us that, in the BBC, there is something worth preserving, and that, if we do not actively manage its environment, its survival could be at risk.
  The series further reminds us that there is very little new under the sun. Certain predators have always been around. The Jurassic period provides many prototypes for the great creatures that inhabit the broadcasting environment of today. The coelurus is 2 m long with, as the BBC on-line fact file says,
  "grasping hands and a long snout."
  The ankylosaurus has a skull that is broad and thick, leaving little room for a brain. The fact file says that it was not built to reach upwards. I could give further examples of the coincidence between creatures of that period of prehistory and present-day inhabitants of the broadcasting environment but, as I shall return to the analogy with "Walking with Dinosaurs" later, I do not want to overstretch it now. I shall leave hon. Members to their own devices in deciding to whom those descriptions apply.
  Why should we worry about the BBC's survival? After all, it has survived major environmental changes before now, especially at its birth and at the start of commercial television. I remind the House that, at the BBC's birth, the Government created a monopoly for it to live in to protect broadcasting from the predators that still dominate the field in the United States, and in that environment, it flourished.
  Later, when commercial television provided competition, the Government acted again to create a highly regulated environment to ensure that broadcasting developed in a way that was as beneficial as possible to the public. In the past 10 years, major social, political, market and technological developments have prompted fundamental changes in the broadcasting environment. Will the BBC, which can pull off miracles such as "Walking with Dinosaurs", survive in anything like its current form? Not unless public policy decides that it should, and works to create an environment that, while allowing the benefits of digital to flourish, does not damage the element of public service broadcasting that we want to preserve.
  In my view, the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) requires two other questions. We must ask ourselves what bits of the BBC we want to keep, and what bits we would want to recreate if we lost them. There are two answers: the services that people get from the BBC that they cannot get from anywhere else; and services for which there are alternatives but which the BBC does best, and so gives the others a lead, raising standards for all. It is with alarm that I find myself in almost total agreement with the hon. Member for New Forest, West on those two issues.

  1255
  A prime example of such services is BBC journalism. The BBC, although not infallible, is generally a source of impartial and accurate information, which is a vital constituent of a healthy democracy. It does not always meet its target, but it aims at the highest standards of broadcast journalism. I suspect that politicians' repeated complaints of bias by the BBC are in inverse proportion to the public's perception of such bias.
  As a public service with no competing commercial considerations, the BBC has uniquely nothing else to aim for but the highest standards of broadcast journalism. That means that a quality kite-marked British journalism is available for listeners and viewers on as wide a range of outlets as technology permits, on their own terms, on whatever medium, whenever and, increasingly, with BBC World and BBC World Service, wherever they are. A further example of what we should keep is the BBC's educational role, the range and quality of which are not offered by any other broadcaster.
  As the Secretary of State said, using the media to promote social cohesion is likely to be much less effective in the digital universe than in the analogue. The digital universe will be much larger and highly fragmented. In that environment, the BBC's role will become more important, not less. The BBC needs to be embedded in that new environment and to fill it with content that is drawn from the rich diversity of cultures in the United Kingdom—programming about our communities, made by members of our communities, using the full range of languages and accents to be found in the isles, reflecting the breadth in contemporary British culture.
  If that is the sort of broadcasting that we want to preserve, we will need to ensure that, in benefiting from market forces, we also regulate to allow public service broadcasting to survive. If it were to become extinct, we would not be able to clone it back into existence. Future generations will not find an example frozen in the tundra from which to extract the DNA of public service broadcasting. It will be lost for ever.
  The ability to produce series such as "Walking with Dinosaurs" is the result of decades of evolution, production talent, credibility with the academic community, building audience expectations of what channels will offer, and the technology to provide supporting activities such as the website. It is what one would expect a highly evolved organism such as the BBC to be able to do. Do we want that to disappear?
  1.6 pm
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: I share the view of many hon. Members that the debate is timely. I am grateful that the Government have found time to raise the issue on the Floor of the House in an Adjournment debate. It is a pity that it is during what might be described as an off-peak period. I hope that we can have a repeat in the near future.
  I enjoyed greatly the gusto with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) launched his broadside against the BBC, but he was more than a little unfair on the Gavyn Davies review, bearing in mind that its terms of reference—to examine future BBC funding—were limited by the Government. In that context, the allegation that the review panel was obsessed with the BBC seems to be entirely unfounded and unfair on the BBC itself.
  1256
  We should not be over-sentimental about the BBC's role, or dwell too much on the past. The BBC should not rest on its not inconsiderable laurels. Surely the basic principle that is at stake and that underlies much of the debate is: can an entirely free and unregulated market enable public service broadcasting to flourish, not as a marginal activity, such as we find in the United States and other parts of the world, but as a mainstream broadcaster with big audiences and—this is the crucial point—a major influence on the whole of the broadcasting market; what is referred to in media jargon as the broadcasting ecology? There can be no doubt that the BBC's public service broadcasting ethos has influenced the whole of the broadcasting market in the UK.
  The BBC faces a major challenge. I quote what the BBC itself has underlined as the challenge in its recent publication "2000 and Beyond." I endorse these words:
  "The most important challenge for the BBC is to continue to fulfil its long-standing purposes: setting a benchmark for quality; guaranteeing a range and type of programmes other broadcasts will not, and guaranteeing universally available, high quality television, radio and new media services, such as online, and other digital services in an increasingly fierce commercial environment."
  Experience tells us that the public service broadcasting ethos will not survive unless there is a secure base of funding for the BBC. The conclusions of the Davies report are balanced and cannot be dismissed lightly. The members of the committee obviously took great care and time to balance the arguments. I am surprised that some hon. Members have attacked the report in intemperate terms.
  There is such a thing as market failure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said. An unregulated multi-channel market with predatory multi-media conglomerates appealing to the lowest common denominator through an endless diet of game shows and quizzes creates problems. Can it deliver the public service broadcasting that we apparently all want to preserve? There is at least a risk that it cannot. In those circumstances, the Government must be prepared to accept that the BBC has a case for extra funding to help it during this formative stage, while the multi-channel market is developing and we enter the fourth broadcasting revolution.
  The important point about the BBC, which has not come out during the debate, is that it is a free-to-air service which provides universal access. There will always be a need for a service that informs and educates impartially, takes risks and stretches horizons.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) on using the ingenious analogy of the dinosaurs and their need to adapt to change to survive. That is an apposite analogy for the media.
  The committee's conclusion was that the BBC would be frozen out of the digital market unless it got extra funding. I share the scepticism of other hon. Members about the appropriateness of the digital fee supplement, which has been described as a poll tax or a fine on households that take out a subscription with a digital provider. Even if one does not accept this particular recommendation, there is a case for extra funding. I welcome the fact that the Government are minded to test rigorously the BBC's figures, which appear to have a broad-brush approach. That evidence does suggest that there is a real demand for extra funding. It would be better

  1257
  to adopt the alternative course mapped out by the report by providing a £5 increase for each of the next two years—a substantial increase above the rate of inflation.
  The vexed issue of concessionary licences has exercised many on both sides of the House for many years. The present system is complex, arbitrary and unfair. I would like to see it changed. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that pensioners should get a better deal. Having read the report, however, I am persuaded that it would be wrong to extend the scheme. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton made what I presume were light-hearted remarks about electoral bribes, but putting a charge on the BBC's finances by making it pay for free licences for pensioner households would amount to just that. However, something needs to be done to address the problem as many pensioners are dependent on television. I would like a voucher system similar to the winter payments system to be introduced to help pensioners with the cost of their television licences.
  In the post-devolutionary era, the BBC has an important role in cementing the countries of the United Kingdom. It is a very British organisation and it has a strong influence in Wales and Scotland. I pay tribute to the work of the BBC in Wales, which attracts 48 per cent. of the viewing and listening public. Its share of the audience is far higher than in England and Scotland. The BBC provides services in Welsh and English in what many people regard as a very professional and efficient way.
  It is superficially attractive to engage in the sport of BBC baiting and there is a great deal of that in the printed media, but one has to ask why. Many of the media conglomerates that have been referred to already have vested interests in attacking the BBC and tarnishing its image. Perhaps some hon. Members have fallen into that trap too.
  We must ensure a secure future for the BBC and I hope that the Government will accept the main recommendations of the report even if they do not accept the proposed digital licence supplement. I share the grave reservations that have been expressed about the recommendation to sell off BBC Resources and I endorse what several hon. Members have said about that. However, I see no reason why the BBC should not be subject to more rigorous accounting control. The BBC is jealous of its independence and rather nervous about too much Government control or regulation, but I see no objection in principle to the National Audit Office having a role in ensuring that BBC resources are accounted for properly. It is essential that the organisation is seen to be fair and transparent.
  We are at a crossroads. The public service ethos that the BBC symbolises is essential. We have to preserve it, but that can only be done at a price. I earnestly ask the Government to take on board the major recommendations in the Davies report.
  1.19 pm
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: I am honoured to have the opportunity to speak in what has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate that has addressed a number of the important issues affecting the future of broadcasting. I am encouraged that the Secretary of State acknowledged the impact of digital broadcasting and that he is setting two tests for availability and affordability.
  1258
  The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), rightly pointed out how important broadcasting is to the whole country. He also rightly highlighted the position of radio—an issue not addressed properly by the Davies panel in its report.
  I am grateful for the kind words of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is not in his place. He made a comprehensive speech. Like him, I am a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, but I do not speak on behalf of the Committee in this debate. The right hon. Gentleman made many observations. He is always robust, and is often judged outside this place by the column inches that he gets. I can only assume that he is arranging that at the moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), as ever, made a sensible and astute speech, and rightly spoke up for his constituents. Issues of choice and availability are extremely important.
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner)—who is not in his place—has often told this House of his regional difficulties. I shall not refer to the fact that most of Norfolk is Conservative. I assume that he has returned to his constituency to sort out some of those difficulties.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, highlighted some of the problems of minority groups, and the points that he made have echoed around the Chamber. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) gave an account of the BBC and of access to BBC News 24 in her constituency, and referred to the reach of digital television.
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), as ever, articulated common sense about the broadcasting revolution. I am pleased that the entertainments of Bournemouth featured well in his speech, and I, for one, would encourage that. He rightly points to standards in broadcasting, which are relevant to today's debate.
  The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) spoke about the position and role of the chief executive of the BBC, and referred to choice. I thought at one point that his speech was a script suited best for the Radio Times. I am pleased to say that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) supported much of what my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West said, and that is encouraging. Like the hon. Gentleman, I enormously enjoyed the series "Walking with Dinosaurs" with my children and family. Finally, the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) spoke about the BBC's position in the broadcasting revolution.
  There is no argument among us that the advent of digitisation has changed the nature of broadcasting. The digital age will end broadcasting as we have known it. Comparatively new services such as satellite and cable will no longer necessarily be free to air. Terrestrial television will not necessarily always be free of charge. If it were not difficult enough to decide between four or five channels, in future we could be faced with more than 200.
  Hon. Members face a daunting challenge if we are to keep pace with the speed of change, both technical and commercial—not only within broadcasting, but across the communications sector which, as has been pointed out, includes the internet. That change has turned broadcasting into one of the biggest growth sectors of the late 1990s, with perhaps even greater potential extending into the new

  1259
  millennium. A great many jobs and commercial opportunities have been created, not least as a result of the Broadcasting Act 1996, brought in by the previous Government.
  That legislation established the right environment in the UK for the digital revolution to take place. We are at the forefront of development of digital terrestrial television. There is no argument about the fact that the principle broadcast medium is television, and that it has an enormous and potentially beneficial influence on our lives. It is not only an entertainment medium, but a source of information, knowledge, news and current affairs, both international, and national and local. It offers visual access to sport, arts and even, I am pleased to say, politics. It is especially important to the elderly and the housebound.
  The digital revolution will have a profound effect on society in many ways. In these early days of the new technological era, we must reflect on the fact that, as diversity grows, it will bring not only a wider choice for viewers but greater competition among broadcasters. We must ask whether we can be confident that we will not lose the best of what we have now in the pursuit of innovation, sacrificing quality for quantity.
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting will recall that, in the debate on broadcasting of 28 April, I raised concerns about social exclusion. She agreed that television can contribute to an information-rich and socially inclusive society. I hope that she will develop her argument and tell us what progress the Government have made in their consideration of the way forward.
  Perhaps the most obvious anomaly affecting broadcasting is that of regional reception. I welcome the Secretary of State's comments on coverage. I, too, am concerned that we take on board the point—made by our constituents and by other hon. Members—that the digital television era should offer at least the level of coverage that analogue systems have attained: estimated, as we have already heard, at 99.4 per cent. of UK households.
  I remain equally concerned that social anomalies still exist. Is it not right that the new technology—digitally broadcast television and radio—should be equally available to all members of society? The Secretary of State referred to his statement in September to the Royal Television Society, in which he announced his proposals for analogue switch-off. We welcome the opportunity to hear his comments at first hand in the House and we broadly support his approach, but I urge him to consider carefully the problems and unintended consequences associated with switch-off. What will the consequences be if take-off is slow? We must ensure that no one is left out in the cold. What will happen if switch-off occurs before digital television is both universally available and readily affordable?
  I share the Secretary of State's vision of basic internet access for everyone with a television and a telephone. Certainly, the housebound and those who rely on television for information and communication could greatly benefit from such a core package of services, but how will it benefit those who already struggle to pay their telephone bill and for whom the additional cost of internet use would be prohibitive? Will the Minister clarify how the Government envisage the internet benefiting the poorest and most vulnerable in society?
  In an increasingly competitive environment, how will the Government encourage broadcasters to provide what the Secretary of State called new and sophisticated
  1260
  services for the disabled? The Royal National Institute for the Deaf is conducting a continuing campaign on behalf of those with sensory disabilities. In the debate on 28 April, the Minister told the House that she had written to the broadcasters to ask what they are doing to encourage the development of digital services for the hard of hearing. Perhaps she can take this opportunity to tell us what responses she has received and how she will answer the RNID's call for Parliament to champion its members' desire for equal access to digital television through subtitling?
  That is surely not a matter for regulation, although many other areas may well be. Standards of broadcasting by commercial channels are regulated by the Independent Television Commission and the BBC regulates itself. Both are subject to judgments, without the power of sanction, by the Broadcasting Standards Council. I believe that we in the House are agreed that the new technology and diversity in broadcasting, including not only digital television but the internet, means that there must be a fundamental review of the regulatory environment. I look forward to hearing the Government's proposals—in the House first.
  It is essential to have a regulatory environment that provides safeguards to protect the innocent and the vulnerable. As the number of channels increases, we must accept that it would be impossible to regulate globally, or to have the invasive regulation that the present system allows. However, that need not mean that we cannot aspire to high standards, or that broadcasters should not strive voluntarily to set codes of acceptable practice. As many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, have said, we must not give our constituents the impression that such matters are of no importance to Members of Parliament.
  That takes us back to what has been said about Christian broadcasting. It is a pity that the current law restricts the opportunities available to such religious groups. Will the Minister expand on that subject?
  Inevitably, our debate has been drawn to the subject of how that world-renowned public institution, the BBC, can survive the upheaval taking place around it. There is no doubt that the BBC must be part of the digital revolution, but no one wants to see a decline in the quality that it provides, for which it is respected throughout the world.
  On the other hand, as has been said by at least two contributors to the debate, the BBC must not become a dinosaur. As I wrote in my notes for the debate, I can tell the House that it was an enormous relief to find that the programme "Walking with Dinosaurs" was not about the launch of the BBC's annual report.
  As hon. Members are aware, the task of recommending how the BBC should be funded was given to a review panel under the chairmanship of Gavyn Davies. Among the panel's proposals were the introduction of a digital licence fee, the injection of private capital into the BBC, and a review of aspects of the concessionary licence scheme.
  The Opposition believe that, in recommending a digital licence fee, the panel has recommended a tax on innovation. What is to be gained by discouraging digital take-up in that way? I would value the Minister's comments on that subject, because the inevitable result will be further delay in the date of switch-off, if the decision is based on the parameters set out today by the Secretary of State.

  1261
  As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said, another issue raised by the Davies panel is the idea that the BBC should seek to sell some of BBC Worldwide via an injection of private capital, and also to sell the bulk of its resources. Does the Minister agree with those recommendations? Does she think that they would allow the BBC to be more competitive? If they would allow it to concentrate its efforts on producing the high quality programmes that people expect of a public service broadcaster, would that not be broadly welcomed?
  The Conservatives share the view that the present concessions on television licences for pensioners and the disabled are unfair, unduly complex, and arbitrary. The cost of a licence increased on 1 April, and a colour licence now costs more than one and a half times the single person's weekly state pension; a 73p increase in the pension will do little to make good the deficit.
  Any promises of concessions for the disadvantaged or elderly, some of whom rely on television as their only medium of contact with the outside world, should not be used as party political gimmicks. They are certainly not the preserve of one political party.
  We welcome the recommendation by the right hon. Member for Gorton about BBC-funded concessions for the elderly. Does the Minister support the view that the existing derisory concession for the blind should be increased to reflect more accurately the sort of access that visually impaired people have to television programmes, as has already been requested for the deaf? Should the BBC not look closely into such matters and offer some solutions?
  With the digital revolution, there is the future ever directly in front of us. I have spoken at some length, as have other contributors, about the BBC. Any debate over the funding of broadcasting will inevitably focus on the corporation's future as a public sector broadcaster. It is clear that the BBC provides an invaluable service to people in this country and those who listen to, and watch it, throughout the world. Its contribution to broadcasting history is undoubted, but now it must define its role in the new era without jeopardising that reputation.
  Let us not forget the continued good work of the commercial sector in providing excellent and popular programmes. The advent of digital television has provided a wealth of new opportunities that have been taken up with enthusiasm by established and new programme makers alike.
  Broadcasting faces an exciting and diverse future. It is right to do what we can to encourage the most competitive marketplace to drive standards up and prices down. Today's debate has been a constructive step in that direction and I am sure that, given some of the contributions from right hon. and hon. Members, the broadcasters cannot avoid listening to us.
  1.36 pm
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, this is an important issue. I remember when, in the early days after I was lucky enough to be asked to do my present job by the Prime Minister, I went on a visit to
  1262
  Border Television where I was asked to open its new digital studio. A member of the staff took my private secretary aside and said, "I hope that the Minister will not mind if we ask her some rather technical questions." As I was very new in the job, the private secretary went pale and wondered what I would say. The first question was, "Well, Minister, there is a whole technological digital revolution going on. How do you explain that to members of the public?" I said that the most important thing to understand was that it would mean more choice and a better deal for the consumer. I put that on the record today as the priority for the Government.
  Many issues have been raised in the debate and I will try to deal with as many as I can. Many hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), have mentioned the current campaign by United Christian Broadcasters. It has been raised with me before by almost every Member of the House, but in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), in whose constituencies UCB is based. The Department has received thousands of letters on the issue.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had a meeting with Gareth Littler and his colleagues, and I visited UCB on Monday with my officials. We spent a pleasant morning there and we were grateful for the prayers that they had offered for us in advance of our arrival. The problem is that UCB are prevented by the legislation from applying for a national licence. We are advised that it would require primary legislation to enable them to do so, and we have said that we will consider the issue when the time comes. I hope that that answers the points raised by many hon. Members.
  The Davies report has also been mentioned by many hon. Members, and I pay tribute to Gavyn Davies and his team for their excellent work and the time that they put into it. The consultation does not close until Monday and the Opposition would not expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or me to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. We shall of course await with interest the deliberations of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and all the other representations we receive.
  The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) raised several points. He said that I had replied to a question he had tabled by saying that I did not envisage a switch-over for analogue radio. What I actually said was that digital broadcasting was at an early stage of development and that it was premature to set a timetable for the switch of analogue services to digital.
  Other points were raised about children's advertising. I confirm that the Government believe that a place remains for such advertising within the properly regulated framework overseen by the ITC.
  Mr. Swayne: Although I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), as a parent I thought that we were looking a gift horse in the mouth in respect of children's advertising. As we build up to the terrible Christmas marathon, a ban on such advertising would make life much less expensive and rather more agreeable.
  Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is right and, as a parent too, I have some sympathy with what he says. However, the Government have no intention of imposing such a ban.
  The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) raised the problem faced by those of his constituents who do not have access to television. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it plain in his speech that the two priorities in the switch-over from analogue to digital are availability and affordability. He made it clear that the 95 per cent. availability figure is a minimum, and that the Government would like to ensure 100 per cent. coverage. That would resolve a problem that many hon. Members have told the House affects their constituencies.
  The hon. Member for Hexham also raised the question of ITV1 and ITV2 and their availability via satellite. The Office of Fair Trading is considering that matter, and we hope that it will report soon.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) never misses an opportunity of raising the problem of those of his constituents who have access only to Yorkshire Television. I pay tribute to his perseverance: he has raised this issue through a private Member's Bill as well as in an Adjournment debate. I shall visit his constituency shortly to study the problem, as I recently visited the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), where there is a similar difficulty. Both I and my right hon. Friend hope that the development of digital will help to resolve some of those problems.
  Mr. Baker: Will the Minister also look at the problem experienced by people on the south coast of England, where my constituents, and many others, are unable to receive Channel 5?
  Janet Anderson: That is a problem in my constituency too, although I dare say that some people would claim that to be a positive advantage. I am not one of them, but it was always made plain from the start that Channel 5 would not achieve 100 per cent. coverage. However, the priorities of affordability and availability are very important to the Government, as my right hon. Friend made clear in his Cambridge speech.
  Mr. Fraser: I do not want to miss out on this opportunity to tell the Minister that my constituency cannot receive Channel 5, and parts of it get Welsh television. Clearly, the problem affects places all over the country. I do not want to represent Wales, and do not speak Welsh, although I appreciate the programmes.
  Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman is right: although the number of areas disadvantaged in the way that has been described is not huge, some places are so affected. My right hon. Friend has written to the broadcasters to see whether anything can be done. If not, we hope that the development of digital will iron out some of the anomalies.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) asked about subtitling. My Department has had several meetings on that subject with concerned hon. Members and with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. Again, my right hon. Friend has written to the broadcasters to say that the Government hope that the development of digital will
  1264
  allow them to continue to improve on the amount of subtitling available. We have been encouraged by their response thus far, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to monitor progress.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) referred to BBC quality and the question of concessions. I shall touch on those points shortly.
  The hon. Member for New Forest, West contributed a great deal to the debate, expressing concern about content. He said that people expected the Government to do something about it, but responsibility rests with the regulators, which is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the Independent Television Commission to examine the regulatory framework.
  We are debating the future of broadcasting, a subject that the Government take seriously. Things are happening so fast that we believe that an evolutionary approach is the wisest one for the Government to take ahead of probable major legislation early in the next Parliament. That is not to say that we are not examining various issues that that legislation would have to cover. Regulation is one such issue.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, I, together with a ministerial colleague from the Department for Education and Employment, held a seminar this week with broadcasters on media education. I am the mother of three children who have spent their entire lives glued to one square screen or another. Through the school curriculum, children are given guidance that enables them to be critical of literature. When they read Shakespeare or Dickens, they learn how to appreciate it, and how to be critical. There is no such help or guidance with the moving image, however, and we and the Department for Education and Employment are discussing that point with broadcasters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) told us of his support for the BBC; it is well known, and we share it. I pay tribute to his work on the all-party BBC group. Some of his demands are not in the gift of the Government, but we have listened carefully to what he said.
  I also listened carefully to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. He said that the views he expressed today were personal, and we shall consider them carefully. The Secretary of State and I cannot speculate on decisions that we may take after public consultation on the Davies report. The report is a serious one and members of the panel which drafted it took the issue seriously. We shall do likewise. We await the outcome of consultation, as well as the forthcoming report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) talked about "Walking with Dinosaurs". I knew that he would, because he and I had a conversation about that programme in the lounge at Heathrow last week as we waited for our delayed flights. I know the enjoyment that he and his son have derived from that programme, as have other hon. Members. The programme took six years to develop and has had huge and proper acclaim. It is the sort of thing that the BBC does very well, and long may it continue to do so.

  1265
  The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) talked about access to the internet. I can reassure him that the Government are anxious to ensure that people are not excluded from the benefits of new technology. We are in discussion with the Office of Telecommunications and others to see what can be done. I emphasise that that is precisely the type of reason why the Government have set up a social exclusion unit, for which a Minister in every Department has responsibility. We want to ensure that as many people as possible have access to the internet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State emphasised that one of our priorities is availability.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) asked several questions, many of which illustrated how quickly events occur. Someone has described this as the fourth broadcasting revolution, which it is. There are no easy answers to many of the questions that he posed. That is why we are adopting an evolutionary approach; we are consulting widely and taking advice on those matters that we shall need to consider when introducing legislation.
  In returning to the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on social exclusion, I must emphasise that we are setting up a viewers panel, so that we can obtain and monitor, at every stage, the views of the consumer on access and take-up of digital.
  Many hon. Members referred to concessionary television licences. My right hon. Friend and I have frequently pointed out that the Government appreciate the importance of television to many people—especially those who are socially isolated because of old age, illness or disability, or who are unable to afford other types of leisure activity. We also accept that the existing concessionary licence scheme—under which entitlement depends on the accommodation occupied and the way in which it is provided or managed—is poorly targeted and unsatisfactory. We also accept that the £1.25 reduction for registered blind people is of little help. However, I repeat that no conclusions on the panel's recommendation have been reached; the public consultation exercise, which will end on Monday, will help to inform our decisions—as will the report of the Select Committee and the views of many Members of the House.
  The debate has been interesting and rewarding. We have covered a wide range of broadcasting issues. Broadcasting is complex; it is important that we get it right. Our aim is to balance the needs and interests of viewers and the need to build on the continued success of the UK broadcasting industry. There may be a perception that what the broadcasters and the Government want prevails over the concerns and needs of consumers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do not want to see the digital programme being driven by broadcasters in the pay-TV market. The Government do not want to move to an early switch-over to digital transmissions merely so that we can sell off the analogue broadcasting spectrum for other use. That is not true.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, our main aim is to protect the interests of consumers. Our desire to encourage the early take-up of digital services and the announcement of a date for digital switch-over are to enable consumers to enjoy early access to the
  1266
  benefits of the new technology. We want them to be informed enough to be confident about buying into the new services if they want to do so, and to have a clear idea about the Government's agenda for broadcasting. We have challenged broadcasters to make digital happen, but we shall be keeping progress under review. There will be plenty of opportunities for Parliament and the consumer to feed concerns and views into that process.
  However, as many hon. Members have mentioned, a wider revolution is taking place. The convergence of broadcasting with telecommunications and computing has been discussed for some time; now, it is finally happening—and it is happening fast—with new interactive services and the internet through our televisions. We are taking steps to ensure that the right legislative framework is in place to deal with that revolution, and that as many people as possible have access to it and are not excluded from it.
  We have emphasised the important role of public service broadcasting; we shall give careful thought as to how the BBC might fit into the new framework. The Davies review is a first stage; we are now conducting—with the ITC—an audit of the regulatory requirements. We intend that the new legislation will cover all main broadcasting issues, and that wide consultation will continue.
  Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that we need an independent audit of the BBC's finances?
  Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are in the middle of a consultation process and that one of the recommendations of the Davies report is that the BBC should become subject to the scrutiny of the National Audit Office. I am sure that he would not encourage me to pre-empt any of the decisions that the Government might take when that consultation is complete and we have been able to take into account the views of hon. Members and the Select Committee. However, I thank him for his intervention.
  When the time comes for legislation, all the major broadcasting issues will be covered. Now is an exciting time: the future of broadcasting is important and we envisage the BBC playing a leading role in the future. We should be proud of some of this country's cultural entrepreneurs in broadcasting—they are the envy of the world. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to today's debate and assure them that we shall take their views into account.
  Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 1st November, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords, relating to the Greater London Authority Bill, has been received.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Private Recruitment Agencies
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  1.56 pm
  Mr. Paul Burstow: In May, the Department of Trade and Industry published its proposals on the regulation of the private recruitment industry. The deadline for responses was 30 September. To the layman, the draft regulations appear to offer better protection for people seeking work and those hiring staff. No one could oppose proposals that eliminate abuse or bad practice—we all want to raise standards; but what appears at first glance to be a thorough piece of work on the part of the employment standards agency is in fact nothing of the sort. If implemented, the draft regulations would have a perverse effect by driving up the cost of live-in care for the elderly and disabled people, undermining Government policy to promote independent living and greater choice through direct payments, and reducing flexibility in the labour market by increasing bureaucracy.
  I was first alerted to the flaws in the draft regulations by a steady trickle of letters from providers of home care and live-in care staff. I make no apology for relying heavily on evidence provided by the United Kingdom Homecare Association, which represents about 700 care agencies throughout the voluntary, not-for-profit and private sectors. It is wrong to characterise the concerns expressed by the care agencies as a minority opinion, not least because those concerns are echoed by organisations representing care users, such as Age Concern, Help the Aged, the Carers National Association, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and Mencap. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have written to the Minister to express similar concerns and to ask questions.
  The best way to explain the draft regulations and the fact that they are misconceived is to present a case study. I shall tell the House about a lady called Elizabeth, who is 80 years old and who suffers from multiple sclerosis; she is frail and vulnerable. In 1996, she started to use her savings and attendance allowance benefits to pay for a two-weekly rotational live-in care package arranged by a care agency. The package enables her to continue to live at home with a degree of independence and dignity, instead of moving into residential care and becoming institutionalised.
  The current cost of Elizabeth's care package is about £316 a week. If the draft regulations are implemented as they stand, the cost to Elizabeth of her care will rise under the new rules by 91 per cent. to £602.78 a week—an extra £286 a week, or £14,872 extra a year. The VAT element alone in that calculation is almost double the attendance allowance that she receives. Elizabeth's case is only one of thousands of examples of how well-intentioned regulations may have unintended and undesirable results.
  The objectives of the new regulations are entirely laudable. They are designed to increase clarity for clients, agencies and work seekers; promote labour market flexibility; protect clients and the general public by codifying good practice; curb payment abuses so that workers are paid and safeguard clients' money to prevent loss or misappropriation. No one could argue with those aims and goals, but they will not be achieved if the compliance cost consequences of the regulations are not addressed.
  1268
  I asked the Minister what assessments and estimates he had made of the impact of the proposals on those who buy care privately. In a written answer, I was directed to annexe 3 of the regulatory impact assessment. However, I was disappointed that the impact assessment was unable to quantify the cost of most of the measures,
  "because the regulations are likely to lead to changes in behaviour of hirers, agencies and workers."
  To be fair to the Minister and the Department, paragraph 33 of the impact assessment accepts that there are compliance costs in the form of additional VAT. However, the Department admits that it has no way of knowing how many hirers will be unable to offset VAT payments. I can tell the Minister that more than 40,000 care users in this country will be unable to offset the new VAT liabilities that arise from the regulations.
  From talking to people in care agencies and reading the impact assessment, I suspect that officials do not fully understand the market in which care agencies operate. Regulations that are drafted for a wider industry are not necessarily appropriate for particular segments of it.
  The employment status of carers or personal assistants, and especially the impact of regulation 7(1), are at the heart of the matter. The United Kingdom Homecare Association, and others who have made representations to me and other hon. Members, strongly contend that people who work in the care sector are genuinely self-employed. They maintain that for four reasons. First, care workers are under no obligation to accept any assignment that is offered to them. Secondly, the care worker is paid directly by the hirer. Thirdly, the care worker can register with more than one agency. Fourthly, the care worker can refuse to accept the placement for the rate that the hirer offers.
  While it is right to try to clarify the contractual position—as the regulations attempt to do—to avoid opportunities for abuse and poor practice, it is misguided to believe that any real benefit will arise from prohibiting care agencies from acting as agents for self-employed, autonomous care workers.
  The practices have developed and stood the test of time for 30 years or more. They enable care workers and care agencies to operate in the flexible way that the Minister and his colleagues extol to the private sector. Therefore, it is strange that the Department is willing to regulate that practice out of existence in the care sector while it allows other sectors in the recruitment industry to continue to use it.
  Regulation 7(1) would insist that care agencies became direct employers. That would give rise to substantial extra costs that would put home care and live-in care out of the reach of many and confine it to the few. The extra costs of payroll, national insurance contributions, employer's liability and sick pay insurance mount to push up costs to the end user. To add insult to injury, VAT will be chargeable on the whole amount of the increased sum, not just the agency's fee for initially arranging the placement.
  There are numerous examples to show that, under the Government's proposals, the VAT element of the cost of home or live-in care will exceed the amount that the Benefits Agency pays in attendance allowance, or the care component of the disability living allowance. Those benefits are designed to help people to meet their care costs and the extra costs of disability, not to pay their tax bill.

  1269
  In the past few months, the Minister has made statements criticising care agencies and others for
  "wildly exaggerating the extra costs and causing a great deal of unnecessary alarm amongst the people who receive care."
  Despite repeated requests for the Government to publish their figures, they have not been forthcoming.
  The Department has disputed figures such as those in the case of Elizabeth, which I quoted earlier. The Minister knows that in August, his officials met Mrs. Gifford of Able Community Care to go through her calculations. The Minister told me yesterday in a written answer that he does
  "not accept that the costs which she calculates would in fact result from the proposed amendments to private recruitment industry regulation."—[Official Report, 28 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 936.]
  I hope that the Minister can tell the House today in detail why he does not accept the calculations. I understand that, even using a formula provided by DTI officials themselves, cost increases of about 40 per cent. still result.
  The lower figures that I have been informed could be achieved are arrived at by amazing contortions which appear to defeat the stated purpose of the regulations. First, I am told, the DTI's formula results in a cut in care workers' take-home pay because officials say that the employee should absorb the extra national insurance costs. Secondly, the DTI formula makes no allowance for the cost of travel, which can be an obstacle to a flexible labour market. Again, that cost has to be picked up by the care worker. That may not be a DTI formula, but I have been led to believe that it is. Will the Minister tell me, therefore, why he does not accept Mrs. Gifford's figures? What alternative figures does he have? Why does it appear that the Department is willing to allow care workers' terms and conditions to worsen?
  I know that the Minister accepts that the VAT liability will rise, although he may dispute by how much, because in a letter, the Minister said that
  "ministerial colleagues at the Treasury and Department of Health have asked officials to examine and report on the impact of the changes on those buying care privately."
  It is a pity that, when I tabled a written question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he transferred it to the DTI. However, I am glad to have been told that the Department of Health is due to reply to my question. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House today what Treasury and Department of Health officials have found so far, because I know that the reference to his ministerial colleagues was made back in August at the latest.
  The Paymaster General confirmed in a letter in August that the DTI's proposals will attract a VAT liability. She said:
  "The current application of VAT to home care gives the widest possible relief under the terms of the European Directive on which UK law is based. There is no possibility of extending the scope of VAT exemption to cover services provided commercially by unqualified, unsupervised carers."
  The Government are unwilling to come forward with their own estimates, but figures from industry analysts suggest that the extra cost will be about £40 million per annum. That will be an extra £40 million in tax revenue for the Chancellor met from the savings and benefits of elderly and disabled people. The Paymaster General suggested, however, that the impact might be reduced if
  1270
  those agencies managed by nurses are able to argue that the services that they provide are VAT-exempt health care. That could reduce the cost to some £20 million.
  That extra VAT burden will have knock-on effects. It will drive up demand for social services funding, place pressure on the independent living fund and frustrate the Government's stated policy of extending direct payments to older people and encouraging their greater take-up by disabled people. It begs the question: where was the joined-up government thinking on that set of proposals?
  Although I appreciate that the Minister may not be in a position to answer for his Treasury colleagues, I hope that he will be able to pass on my representations and ask the Paymaster General to re-examine the scope for zero rating on personal home care for individual users. The Government's hands are not tied on VAT exemptions in that area. All home care services provided to meet an assessed need should be VAT exempted. Paragraph 1(g) of article 13 of the sixth VAT directive permits exemptions for
  "services … closely linked to welfare or social security work."
  The Government therefore have the scope to grant an exemption to commercial, as well as charitable, organisations.
  Even if the interpretation by Customs and Excise is right, and there are clearly grounds for dispute on the point about the VAT directive, there is another way in which the Government could lift the additional VAT burden imposed by the regulations. An EU initiative would allow the Government to seek a reduced VAT rate for labour-intensive services that are sold directly to final consumers. Surely home care and living care come under that heading?
  Will the Minister consider, with his Treasury and Department of Health colleagues, the possibility of making such a bid for a reduction in VAT on those services? That offers a solution to the problems that the regulations will cause for this part of the recruitment industry. I understand that time for such applications is limited because the regulations are due to come into effect at the beginning of the next calendar year.
  In this short debate, I want to make it clear that I fully accept the need to strike a balance between the interests of workers, hirers and agencies so as to afford greater protection to all parties in future. Regulations have a positive role to play in eliminating abuses or bad practices and in driving up standards—or at least they could have.
  That leads me to my final point. Regulations are only as good as the enforcement regime that underpins them. The current regime is complaints driven, but it gives little insight into how the sector is performing or who is operating in the sector. That is reflected in page after page of the regulations, and in the compliance cost assessment. There is almost no reference in the documentation about the regulation of this industry to the impact that it will have on the care industry. That is undoubtedly because of the paucity of information available to the Department at the moment.
  Creating new rules and clarifying old ones will not necessarily raise standards. It leaves it open for low-profile cowboy operators to drive a coach and horses through the regulations while the reputable operators pick up and pass on the compliance costs to those in need of care. At worst, reputable operators will be unable to

  1271
  compete in a market in which others are undercutting them by dodging the regulations, and they go out of business as a consequence.
  Enforcement and regulation require a joined-up approach. I hope that the Minister will talk to his colleagues in the Department of Health about their plans for the establishment of regionally based commissions for care standards, and the possibility of them taking on some, if not all, of the role of enforcing standards in the important field of domiciliary and live-in care.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to answer three questions, of which I gave his private office notice on Wednesday. I do not think that they are too taxing, but I shall wait and see. First, what is his Department's estimate of the increased care costs that will arise from the regulations? That information could put to rest the concerns being raised by hon. Members and outside organisations. Secondly, what other Departments have been involved in assessing the impact of the draft regulations, and when did they become involved? Thirdly, what is the timetable? When will the regulations emerge in their final guise, and when will the House have the chance to consider them in that context?
  Above all, I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he accepts that the fears I have expressed are real, and that the Government's commitment to protecting the rights of the many will ultimately shine through in the revised regulations that emerge from the consultation process.
  2.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I commend the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this Adjournment debate. He has taken a keen interest in this subject, as have other hon. Members. It is an important subject, and I welcome the debate, not least because it gives the Government an opportunity to state clearly what the review is about. We have had genuine consultation, and have welcomed the positive dialogue that we have had with the recruitment industry and others. We are carefully considering the responses that we have received, and we have made it clear that nothing has been set in stone, concrete, aspic or any other substance. The debate therefore comes at an opportune time.
  The private recruitment industry plays a key role in today's flexible labour market. It is a major industry, and covers permanent placements and temporary staff hire in diverse sectors, from office work to factories, from entertainment to the care of the elderly, which was the issue on which the hon. Gentleman concentrated.
  The industry has tripled since 1992, and its turnover is now estimated at more than £16 billion. The regulations governing agency conduct are 23-years-old. It is widely accepted that the private recruitment industry has expanded and developed so much since then that we need to update the regulations.
  We have received widespread support from employment bureaux, trade organisations, hirers and workers for the aims of our new regulations. The problem with the contribution of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam is that it tended to give an unbalanced view of what the review is all about. He mentioned a perverse effect, but talked about one particular aspect.
  1272
  It is important to put on record the fact that most of the organisations in the sector have welcomed not just the review, but the broad thrust of the Government's proposals. I amplify that by quoting, for example, Age Concern, which says in its submission to the review:
  "We welcome many of the changes that would be introduced and support the rationale behind them."
  It goes on to say:
  "Many of the proposed changes are entirely consistent with the broader thrust of Government policy: enhancing the protection of vulnerable people; improving the quality of services: and ensuring minimum standards in employment practice. Age Concern England wholeheartedly supports these changes."
  May I take the liberty of mentioning another quotation, which is also important? The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned the UKHCA, a major player in the sector. It made it clear that
  "the reforms will radically alter traditional working practices, most particularly in the care sector and, despite concerns over elements of the proposed regulations, agencies do support the basic principles of transparency and improved conditions for care workers."
  Mr. Burstow: The Minister has moved on to the point that I wish to draw to his attention. The care sector of that big industry has generally welcomed the regulations, but it has particular concerns, on which I have sought to concentrate my remarks. I look forward to him dealing with the VAT issue, which is at the crux of the sector's concerns.
  Mr. Johnson: Be patient. I will come to that, although the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the debate is about our review of the agency sector. For reasons that he mentioned, it is important to put it on record that the broad thrust of the proposals are welcomed. Indeed, if we did nothing and retained the status quo, Elizabeth, the constituent whom he mentioned, would stand to lose a lot and would be in great jeopardy.
  It is important to set out, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam did to a point, the review's aims. I do not think that he or his party would disagree with them. I would be surprised if any hon. Members would.
  We aim to simplify and to reduce the number of regulations. Far from increasing bureaucracy, we intend to reduce it. There are three sets of different regulations. We are looking to have one set to benefit all agencies. We have not seen any criticism of that objective.
  We aim to increase the clarity of contractual relationships in the sector, so that workers and hirers know who is contracting with whom. Again, Age Concern makes an eloquent submission to support that. It is equally concerned about the position of care workers and hirers.
  Another principle is to promote labour market flexibility. We are looking also to introduce stringent requirements to check temporary staff who work with children, or the elderly—again, a fundamental update that is overdue. We are looking to protect clients and the general public, to curb payment abuses, which occur, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will accept, in all strands of the industry, and to safeguard entertainment workers' money. We have those seven fundamental aims.

  1273
  Contrary to some of the comments by the hon. Gentleman, I can assure him that, for the past two years—I respond to one of his fundamental questions—there has been close collaboration between the Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Health, Customs and Excise and Her Majesty's Treasury. He asked when that began. It would be stretching it to say 2 May 1997, but we began the process shortly after the general election. The concepts of joined-up government and cross-cutting are important, and nowhere more so than on this issue. In the care sector in particular, there are other Departments and Government objectives involved.
  We recognise that many people are concerned about how their long-term care needs or those of their friends or relatives will be met. The Government are looking at the system of funding long-term care to ensure that it is fair and sustainable. We set up a royal commission in 1997 to help with that. My colleagues received the commission's report in March this year. We have already acted on some of the recommendations. For example, we have improved services for carers by allocating £140 million over three years to help to fund more respite care. We are extending direct payments to people aged 65 and over. That has been widely welcomed in the industry. We have also announced our intention to establish a proper commission for care standards as soon as parliamentary time allows so that residential and nursing homes can be inspected by an independent agency.
  Mr. Burstow: The Minister referred to worthy Government initiatives, including direct payments, which were started by the previous Administration through a private Member's Bill. However, direct payments will butt against the regulations because of the increased liabilities that will result from the change of employment status of care workers, as I said earlier. The Minister has been talking about clarity—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go on too long.
  Mr. Johnson: Everyone wants to safeguard direct payments. Age Concern and others have made that clear. The crucial aspect of the debate is the relationship between the hirer and the carer.
  My colleagues are giving the commission's proposals on the funding of long-term care the careful consideration that they merit. We want to find a solution that is fair to the individual and to the taxpayer and will stand the test of time.
  The Government are fully aware of the need for care services to be affordable and of good quality. We are also aware that a small number of agencies in the care sector offer among the most unsatisfactory and ambiguous business terms in the private recruitment industry. If we are conducting a proper review of the entire agency sector, it would be perverse to leave out a sector that has a large number of abuses. Good quality care will not be encouraged or promoted by such poor business practices.
  1274
  As I have already said, one of our main aims is to clarify the contractual relationships between employment bureaux, hirers and temporary workers. We shall require employment bureaux to operate as employment businesses when introducing or supplying temporary workers. The temporary worker's contractual relationship will be with the bureau rather than the hirer.
  People who take on the difficult job of providing care are entitled to proper contracts and proper employment rights. A bureau that supplies the carer should be responsible for those elements. Otherwise, the people receiving care could find themselves liable under employment or tax law, even if their carer is labelled self-employed by their bureau.
  At the moment, some employment bureaux supply workers on vague contracts that result in no one knowing who is responsible. That is the case for Elizabeth, the hon. Gentleman's constituent. Care recipients may find that, without their knowledge, they are responsible for ensuring that their carer receives the national minimum wage and other employment rights, for their health and safety and for their tax arrangements. Unfortunately, a minority of the care sector has conducted a scare campaign. The danger is that it has unnecessarily alarmed some of the most vulnerable people in our communities—those in need of care—and their families and, of course, the care workers themselves. Lurid stories about huge cost increases do not help anyone.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned Able Community Care, a company that participated in our consultation. I note that The Economist this morning contains an article that probably represents all the worst aspects of the lurid reporting that I mentioned. I am not saying that Able Community Care is responsible for the article. It states that people in need of care will have to leave their homes and be housed in already overstretched hospitals and nursing homes and that the Government will prohibit self-employment in the sector. That is certainly not our aim or objective.
  Mr. Burstow: In a written answer on 19 October, the Minister stated that care workers who are self-employed could remain so. Can he confirm that now?
  Mr. Johnson: I shall return to that in a moment. I have one final point to make first. The article quotes someone from an employment agency as saying:
  "The agency think that this bureaucratic burden"—
  that is, paying the minimum wage, complying with employment law and providing proper paid leave—
  "is all the more unnecessary because many carers come from abroad—mainly from the Commonwealth".
  We submit that all workers in this country are entitled to basic minimum standards.
  On another piece of misinformation, let me say that labelling workers self-employed—we have no desire to remove the ability to hire self-employed carers—does not necessarily mean that they are. Claiming that those placed in bogus self-employment are not entitled to the minimum wage or to working-time rights will cut no ice in the review that we are conducting.

  1275
  Whether individual carers are self-employed for employment law or tax purposes depends on the nature of their contracts. Any disputes will continue to be assessed by the courts using established pointers to employment or self-employment.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned bureaucracy. We are well aware of the need to keep red tape to a minimum. As I have said, we propose to repeal a number of statutory requirements which are no longer necessary, such as those which prevent temporary workers from getting information about better jobs elsewhere. We are looking at ways to streamline the proposals to the maximum extent.
  Bureaux have raised with us the need to respond quickly to customer demand. Workers are finding that they are taken advantage of as a result of that process, because the rate that they are offered on the telephone when they apply for the job is completely different from the rate that they are actually paid. We may be seeking to introduce bureaucracy—a term that may sound pejorative—but it is to the benefit of the hirer and carer.
  I have two final points. The hon. Gentleman raised the crucial issues of costs and VAT. On costs, I cannot add anything to the regulatory impact assessment in the consultation document that was published at the end of May. We do not have available the information for which the hon. Gentleman asked. I am afraid that the Treasury is responsible for VAT. We are in the middle of the consultation period so I am not in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman the results of consultation that is continuing or to say anything other than we are
  1276
  working closely with the Treasury on the problems that he has identified. We ourselves highlighted these problems in the consultation document. Having done so, we are certainly minded to ensure that we find a solution—
  It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Mr. Johnson: I fear that my inexperience is showing, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We want to make sure that the problems are tackled. I would submit to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam that this is the only area where there is a legitimate area for concern about the proposals. Lurid stories about raising £60 million suggest that some bureaux are not paying the minimum wage or paid holidays, are not looking after carers properly, and are leaving the hirer in a state of ambiguity, with infirm and elderly people suffering accordingly.
  I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam for raising the debate, and I assure him that his comments will be looked at as part of the consultation process. I am sure that, when he sees the final proposals—which we hope will be ready late in the winter, to come out next spring—he will feel that we have done a proper job on behalf of all people in need of care in this country, including Elizabeth.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  A1 Western Bypass
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date the Highways Agency agreed to postpone the widening of the A1 Western Bypass between North Gosforth and Ponteland Road interchanges consequent upon the development of the Northern Development Area, Newcastle; who were the parties to this agreement; and what size of development will be permitted prior to widening. [95862]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 29 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked "on what date the Highways Agency agreed to postpone the widening of the A1 Western Bypass between North Gosforth and Ponteland Road interchanges consequent upon the development of the Northern Development Area; who were the parties to this agreement; and what size of development will now be permitted prior to widening".
  The only widening of the A1 between North Gosforth and Ponteland Road that the Highways Agency has considered is as a consequence of the development proposals for the Northern Development Area. If the development had been granted planning permission, the timing of the widening would have depended on the implementation of the development. No decision has been made on this; it would have been the subject of discussion and agreement with the developer had planning permission been granted.
  The application for the Northern Development Area was withdrawn on 3 September 1999. A new application was submitted on the same day for Newcastle Great Park that proposes similar improvements to the A1 Trunk Road.

  Traffic data for the A1 around Newcastle

  Projected figures

  Road

  Location

  AADT 1995

  AADT 1997 (%)

  AADT 1998 (%)

  AADT 1999

  AADT 2002

  AADT 2005

  AADT 2010

  A1

  Bowes PH, W of A1M Bifurcation

  89,600

  93,000(9)

  93,600(10)

  95,200

  100,100

  105,100

  113,200

  A1

  North of Smithy Lane Overbridge

  80,100

  83,800(−)

  84,600(9)

  86,100

  90,400

  95,000

  102,300

  A1

  Northwest of Lady Park

  79,700

  82,100(10)

  82,600(9)

  84,000

  88,300

  92,800

  99,900

  A1

  Northwest of Lobley Hill I/C

  97,700

  101,500(9)

  103,400(10)

  105,200

  110,500

  116,100

  125,000

  A1

  Northwest of Consett Route I/C

  92,400

  94,500(9)

  94,600

  96,200

  101,100

  106,200

  114,400

  A1

  Metro Centre, East of I/C

  79,800

  80,800(10)

  81,200

  82,600

  86,800

  91,200

  98,200

  A1

  North of Blaydon Bridge

  75,600

  81,700(9)

  83,000(9)

  84,400

  88,700

  93,200

  100,300

  A1

  North of A69 Interchange

  72,900

  79,200(8)

  81,000(8)

  82,400

  86,600

  91,000

  97,900

  A1

  South of Ponteland Road Interchange

  68,100

  73,400(9)

  76,000

  77,300

  81,300

  85,300

  91,900

  A1

  South of Brunton Lane Overbridge

  52,800

  57,000(8)

  59,100(8)

  60,100

  63,200

  66,400

  71,500

  A1

  North of Ponteland Road Interchange

  57,800

  61,200(−)

  63,300(6)

  64,400

  67,700

  71,100

  76,500

  996

  A new traffic impact assessment has been produced and is currently with the Agency for consideration. As part of those considerations, the size of the development that will be permitted prior to widening will be discussed.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the traffic flows along the A1 Western Bypass of Newcastle and Gateshead at(a) the Metrocentre interchange, (b) the Tyne River crossing, (c) the Ponteland Road interchange and (d) the North Gosforth interchange in (i) 1995, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998 and (iv) 1999; and what flows are projected for (1) 2002, (2) 2005 and (3) 2010 (x) with and (y) without, the development of the Northern Development Area, Newcastle. [95876]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 29 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question. You asked for the traffic flows along the A1 Western Bypass of Newcastle and Gateshead from the Metro Centre to North Gosforth, including the Tyne Crossing.
  The attached table, Annex A, sets out the information you requested at the locations where we have traffic counters for the years 1995, 1997, 1998 and 1999 together with projected flows for the years 2002, 2005 and 2010 without the development of Northern Development Area, Newcastle.
  A copy of the traffic flows with and without the development for Northern Development Area at assessment year 2013 at Annex B has been placed in the library. In considering planning applications, developers are only required to assess traffic flows for 15 years after the development is brought into use (the assessment year). We do not therefore have the figures for intermediate years. You will note that these are peak hour flows as these are the flows we have used in making our assessment.
  As you may be aware, the application for Northern Development Area was withdrawn on 3 September 1999 and a new application submitted on the same day for Newcastle Great Park that proposes similar improvements to the A1 Trunk Road.
  A new traffic impact assessment has been produced and is currently with the Highways Agency for consideration. We have asked for more traffic-forecast information from the developer with a revised date of opening of 2000 with the assessment year of 2015. Our initial impression is that the traffic impact will be different from the Northern Development Area application, but until we have this further information and have studied it, we cannot be sure. I am sorry therefore that we do not yet have the information that you have requested in relation to the Newcastle Great Park development.

  997

  Traffic data for the A1 around Newcastle

  Projected figures

  Road

  Location

  AADT 1995

  AADT 1997(%)

  AADT 1998(%)

  AADT 1999

  AADT 2002

  AADT 2005

  AADT 2010

  A1

  South of A19 Interchange, Hazelrigg

  41,900

  40,500(8)

  47,700

  48,500

  51,000

  53,600

  57,700

  A1

  North of Seaton Burn Interchange

  26,900

  28,400(6)

  27,800(10)

  28,300

  29,700

  31,200

  33,600

  A1

  North of A197, Morpeth

  17,000

  18,600(11)

  18,800(15)

  19,100

  20,100

  21,100

  22,700

  Key:

  AADT—Annual Average Daily Traffic

  Source of Percentage Increases:

  The COBA Manual Table 10/1 September 1996—LGNRTF

  Schoolchildren (Transport)
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking to encourage the use of public transport by children travelling to and from school. [95766]

  Mr. Hill
  In December 1998 we established the School Travel Advisory Group (STAG) to promote best practice and develop a more coherent approach to school travel issues.

  STAG oversees a programme of research which includes a project, due for completion in Summer 2000, to identify good practice in increasing bus use for journeys to and from school. This will lead to the publication of a guide for local authorities and operators.

  STAG has also overseen the preparation of two guides published in June, one for local authorities and one for parents, teachers and school governors, which include guidance on increasing the use of public transport by children travelling to and from school. Both guides also include guidance on increasing levels of walking and cycling.

  I have arranged for a copy of both guides to be placed in the Library.

  Regional Planning
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has given the panels inspecting draft regional planning guidance reports about consulting local authorities in the relevant areas. [96108]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Draft Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) is prepared by regional planning bodies made up of the local authorities in the region, working with other stakeholders. A Panel, appointed by the Secretary of State, then holds a Public Examination into the draft guidance. Draft Planning Policy Guidance note 11:Regional Planning advises the Panel to consult local planning authorities, through the regional planning body, in drawing up the list of participants and matters selected for examination by the Panel. The Guidance also advises that the regional planning body should be represented at the public examination. Individual local authorities may also participate at the examination (as they have done at the recent examinations into draft RPG for East Anglia and the South East). Once he has considered the Panel report, the Secretary of State will publish draft changes to the regional guidance for a further short public consultation.

  National Speed Policy Review
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends(a) to publish the findings of the National Speed Policy Review and (b) to begin wider public consultation on national speed policy; what representations he has already had with regard to the national speed policy; and if he will make a statement. [96037]

  Mr. Hill
  The Review of Speed Policy is nearing completion and the conclusions and recommendations will be published shortly. Recommendations requiring changes to legislation will be developed into proposals, and consultation on these will take place. A large number of representations covering wide ranging interests and views has been made about the review, including more than 100 replies in response to the discussion document which was circulated by my Department during the summer.

  Roads (Priority Lanes)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the introduction of bus and other priority lanes on(a) motorways and (b) trunk roads. [95999]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: There are no immediate plans for further bus or priority lanes on national motorways: on all purpose trunk roads they will continue to be considered as an option to address transport problems.

  Fuel Duty Rebate
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what would be the estimated cost of extending the current rebate on fuel duty to community transport schemes. [96170]

  Mr. Hill
  The term "community transport" covers a wide range of different services and organisations. The cost of extending the scope of the Fuel Duty Rebate scheme would depend on the precise definition of eligibility adopted.

  Changes to the scope of the scheme will shortly be considered by the Commission for Integrated Transport as part of its study of value for money for public support for bus services.

  South East of England Development Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost to public funds of publishing the October 1999 issue of the
  999
  South East of England Development Agency's newsletter SEView; and how many copies were (a) published and (b) distributed. [96264]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The first eight page edition of SEEDA—South East View was published on Friday 15 October 1999, and was bound into the centre of South East Business Magazine which had a print run of 13,650 copies. Despatch to readers was by First Class post, the cost of which was met by the South East Business Magazine. An additional 3,000 copies of South East View were delivered to SEEDA of which 1,100 have been distributed so far. The total cost was £8,206.22 plus VAT.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 13 September on behalf of his constituent, Ms Pendray. [96291]

  Mr. Meacher
  My noble Friend the Minister for Transport replied to the right hon. Member on 26 October.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department plans to respond to the letter sent to him on 29 June by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East addressed to the then Minister for the Regions on the subject of regional development agencies. [96485]

  Description

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  11998–99

  Local Transport2

  1,031

  1,242

  1,140

  1,088

  914

  842

  778

  Railways

  2,161

  1,547

  -351

  -1,269

  -928

  352

  568

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  —

  2

  1,799

  1,703

  1,847

  1,438

  1,255

  London Transport

  883

  693

  784

  903

  942

  629

  391

  Other Transport

  197

  103

  221

  130

  76

  104

  94

  Total

  4,272

  3,587

  3,593

  2,555

  2,851

  3,365

  3,086

  1 Estimated outturn

  2 Figures provided for Local Transport may include expenditure on elements other than public transport

  Note:

  All figures exclude departmental running costs

  Sources:

  Year 92–93—DETR Annual Report 1998, Years 93–94 to 98–99—DETR Annual Report 1999

  The expenditure figures are for direct DETR spending in support of public transport, and do not include expenditure by local authorities (other than that financed by the Transport Supplementary Grant) or private sector finance. DETR does not analyse expenditure by region, or keep records of population by region.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the amount of funding provided by local authorities(a) to the arts, (b) to museums and galleries and (c) supporting the upkeep of listed buildings in the last year for which figures are available. [95491]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  English local authorities incurred a total net current expenditure of £137.7 million on museums and art galleries in 1997–98. Expenditure on
  1000
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The then Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), replied to the hon. Member on the 13 July.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many hours per week the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) spent on ministerial duties in(a) September, (b) October and (c) will spend in November. [96493]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I spend, and will continue to spend, as much time as required to fulfil my Ministerial responsibilities.

  Public Transport Expenditure
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was spent per inhabitant on public transport(a) in the West Midlands and (b) in Greater London in each of the last seven years; and if he will make a statement. [96292]

  Mr. Hill
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The latest figures available for DETR historic and planned expenditure, and planned spending, on all elements of Transport can be found in the Departmental Annual Report 1999. Expenditure by DETR on public transport over the last seven years is as follows:

  art activities and facilities and conservation of the historic environment was separately identified for the first time on the 1998–99 returns, and this information is not yet complete. However, budget information for the total net current expenditure on culture and heritage is available for 1999–2000, the figure for English local authorities being £278.5 million. This includes museums and galleries, art activities and facilities, conservation of the historic environment, and archives and records.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list by political party, the number of councillors who sit as board members of each of the Regional Development Agencies; [96012]
  1001
  (2) what is the total number of Regional Development Agency board members in England; and of those, how many are councillors. [96007]

  Ms Armstrong
  The eight Regional Development Agencies currently have 102 board members in all, including the Chairmen, and four vacant board positions. Four councillors were appointed to each board, affiliated as follows:

  Regional Development Agency

  Labour

  Liberal Democrat

  Conservative

  Independent

  Advantage West Midlands

  3

  0

  1

  0

  East of England

  2

  1

  1

  0

  East Midlands

  3

  1

  0

  0

  North West

  3

  1

  0

  0

  One NorthEast

  3

  0

  0

  1

  South East

  2

  1

  1

  0

  South West

  2

  1

  1

  0

  Yorkshire Forward

  13

  1

  0

  0

  1 Includes one former councillor who was not re-elected at the last election

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of his Department's non-departmental public body(a) employees and (b) expenditure is represented by the eight regional development agencies. [96003]

  Ms Armstrong
  (a) Approximately 5 per cent. (using available figures of RDAs' staffing on 1 April 1999 compared with NDPBs' staffing on 1 April 1998); and

  (b) 24 per cent. (planned expenditure for 1999–2000).

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what have been the set-up costs to date of regional development agencies. [96004]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Regional Development Agencies spent £5.138 million in the four months before they were established on 1 April 1999. In addition to inherited resources, RDAs have £17 million this financial year to spend on administration.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many meetings(a) Ministers and (b) officials have had with representatives of each of the regional development agencies. [96009]

  Ms Armstrong
  Ministers and officials have been involved in a regular, and ongoing, programme of meetings with the Regional Development Agencies.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many regional development agency strategies he has received; and when and by what method he intends to respond to them. [96011]

  Ms Armstrong
  Strategies for all eight Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) were presented to Ministers on 26 October. We aim to formally respond to these by the end of the year. A decision on the appropriate method of response will be made after full consideration of the Strategies.

  Regional Chambers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, by political party, the number of councillors who are members of each regional chamber. [96010]

  Ms Armstrong
  The current breakdown, by political party, of the councillors who are members of the regional chambers is as follows:

  Conservative

  Labour

  Liberal Democrat

  Other

  East

  11

  10

  5

  1

  East Midlands

  17

  37

  6

  8

  North East

  2

  34

  4

  2

  North West

  15

  38

  10

  7

  South East

  33

  15

  20

  5

  South West

  23

  19

  30

  8

  West Midlands

  7

  27

  6

  2

  Yorkshire and Humber

  4

  13

  2

  3

  Oxford Traffic
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the Oxford Transport Strategy's impact on traffic congestion in the city. [96597]

  Mr. Hill
  The Oxford Transport Strategy has been implemented as a rolling programme since its adoption in 1993, supported by a specific central Government funding from 1994–95 onwards. Oxfordshire County Council has established a programme of continuous monitoring to assess the impact of the Oxford Transport Strategy. They estimate that car flows into the central area of Oxford have decreased by about 4.5 per cent. from 1991 to 1998. The Government will continue to assess the results of this monitoring as part of the Local Transport Plan funding regime.

  Council Tax
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the operation of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme for 2000–01. [96951]

  Ms Armstrong
  The guideline for the 2000/01 scheme will be the same as last year: a 4.5 per cent. increase in council tax or such higher increase as is necessary to give the council an increase in its budget requirement equal to its full cash SSA increase. As indicated last year, the scheme will operate cumulatively. For each authority, we will use its previous year's council tax at guideline as the starting point.

  All other aspects of the scheme will operate on the same basis as last year.

  Revenue Support Grant
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements he intends to make for the distribution of revenue support grant to local authorities in England. [96952]
  1003
  Ms Armstrong
  I expect to be able to announce to the House full details of the proposed Revenue Support Grant distribution in late November. However it would be helpful both to hon. Members and local authorities to announce now what I am minded to do in terms of grant distribution, phasing in or changes, and consultation.

  This year, I propose to set considerable store by stability in the grant system, to help councils plan ahead. In our July 1998 White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch With The People", we said that we would not expect to make fresh changes to the method of calculation of Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs,) except, for example, where there are changes in the functions of councils, or the financing of particular services. We said that the SSAs of individual councils would change to reflect changes in demand for their services as reflected in the data used to calculate the SSAs.

  The totals of SSAs will change this year to reflect the increased funding announced last July in the Comprehensive Spending Review. There will be changes to reflect new functions or financing arrangements. The £150 million from the Service Development Fund which we had put in the Education SSA total to help meet the costs of implementing the pay reforms proposed in the Teachers' Green Paper will now be paid as part of a special Grant for that purpose.

  Our present intention is that, subject to consultation, and approval by the House, we shall not make any changes to the method of grant distribution generally. We shall need to make some limited adjustments to SSAs to accommodate the establishment of the Greater London Authority (GLA) and related changes, most notably those arising from the alterations to the boundary of the Metropolitan Police area and the Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey police areas.

  We intend to adopt similar rules for Central Support Protection Grant and the SSA Reduction Grant as for this year. This would mean that no authority would receive less central support in 2000–01 than in 1999–2000, and every education authority would receive at least a 1.5 per cent. increase in central support. In both cases, the comparisons must make allowance for the changes connected with the creation of the GLA. The SSA Reduction Grant would operate in the same way as in 1999–2000 but with comparisons moved on a year as necessary.

  I am sure that this early indication of our intentions will be welcomed by most authorities for the extra certainty which it gives them in the early stages of their budget decisions for next year.

  Given the degree of stability that we propose this year, I do not intend to invite local authorities to hold meetings with Ministers during consultation on the settlement. I expect authorities to put any points in writing; they will all be considered before I finalise my proposals. I shall meet the local authority associations so that they can put any points directly to me. Individual local authorities of course can channel their comments through the associations.

  Rail Vehicle Accessibility
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there is an exemption order for the fleet of new trains to be introduced into service by Serco Metrolink in respect of any of the provisions of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998; if he will list all exemption orders from the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 since 27 July; and if he will make a statement. [96954]

  Mr. Hill
  As my predecessor explained in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 167, we are expecting to receive a number of exemption applications from train and tram operating companies whose designs for new rail vehicles were well advanced prior to the 1998 Regulations coming into force.

  We have received an application from Serco Metrolink relating to the new trams they wish to introduce on the Manchester Metrolink extension to Eccles via Salford Quays. The exemptions, which are of a very minor nature, have been discussed with our statutory advisers the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. An exemption Order relating to the exemption of these trams has been laid in Parliament today. Copies are available from the Library.

  Applications for exemption from certain aspects of the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998 have also been received from both South West Trains Ltd. for their Class 458 rail vehicles and ScotRail Railways Ltd. for their Class 170/4 rail vehicles. The exemptions sought were also discussed with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. Exemption Orders relating to the South West Trains vehicles and the ScotRail vehicles were laid before Parliament on 3 September and 13 September respectively. Copies are also available from the Library.

  The exemptions will not prevent disabled people from using the new trams or trains. Indeed, we believe that their introduction will make a significant contribution to improving mobility opportunities for disabled people.

DEFENCE

  Queen Victoria School
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the key targets for 1999–2000 for the Chief Executive of Queen Victoria School, Dunblane. [96908]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Chief Executive of Queen Victoria School has been set the following Key Targets for 1999–2000:Achieve a staying on rate at School for S4 to S5 of at least 70 per cent. based on a three year trend.
  Exceed by 2 per cent. the average percentage pass rate for all Scottish presentations obtaining five or more Credit awards at Standard Grade based on a three year trend.
  Achieve a percentage of the presentation at Higher Grade achieving A to C grade greater than or equal to the Scottish average based on a three year trend.
  To achieve a pupil per capital cost of no more than £17,415 (at 1998–99 prices) by March 2000.
  To generate income to the School of at least £240,000.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many referrals to the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme there have been; and what research into Gulf War syndrome the programme sponsors. [96063]

  Mr. Spellar
  At 27 October 1999 there had been 3,128 referrals to the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (GVMAP). The GVMAP does not sponsor research into Gulf veterans' illnesses. Its two main purposes are:to investigate patients' medical complaints, make a diagnosis as far as is possible, and recommend appropriate management, or provide reassurance if no illness is found;
  to collate statistical information in an anonymised form as a resource for researchers.

  As part of this second role, a paper on the clinical findings from the first 1,000 patients seen by the GVMAP was published in the British Medical Journal on 30 January 1999. This was the first time that the results of clinical examinations of a large number of UK Gulf veterans had been published. A paper on the clinical findings from the second 1,000 patients is in preparation and will be submitted for publication later this year.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if employees of DERA will remain members of the Civil Service Pension Scheme consequent upon his proposals for privatisation. [93705]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Any staff transferring out of the civil service as a result of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) transaction cease to be civil servants and, as such, are no longer eligible for membership of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS). The Government Actuary's Department is responsible for certifying that any new scheme they join offers broadly comparable benefits to those offered by the PCSPS. Staff will be treated fairly and in line with the Government's Statement of Practice for Staff Transfers in the Public Sector which sets out comprehensive guidance for the treatment of staff in PPP deals, including new guidance on the protection of staff pensions.

  BRC Information System
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on(a) the current status and (b) the future of the biological, radiological and chemical information system. [95801]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Biological, Radiological and Chemical Information System (BRACIS) are a computer-based prediction system. If a Biological, Radiological or Chemical hazard were detected, the system would assist commanders in the field to understand the implications of the hazard, and take appropriate action.

  BRACIS was acquired in 1995 and is used by all three Services. An updated version of the software was acquired
  1006
  this year and this recently began to be used for training purposes at the Defence Nuclear, Biological & Chemical (NBC) School.

  A more capable system is being developed with a communications capability which will enable it to be integrated with other systems contributing towards digitisation of the battlespace.

  Under 18-year-olds
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK service personnel under 18 years of age have been killed in 1998 and 1999 [95630]

  Mr. Spellar
  Between 1 January 1998 and 26 October, 1999 five UK Service personnel under 18 years of age have been killed, two in 1998 (one drowning, one fall) and three in 1999 (two road traffic accidents, one alcohol poisoning).

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letters of 17 June and 1 September on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Allan. [96281]

  Mr. Hoon
  I replied to the right hon. Member on 23 October.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Minister's letter of 30 August, when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a substantive reply to his letter of 10 August on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Hall. [96280]

  Mr. Hoon
  I expect to be in a position to write to the right hon. Member soon.

  Departmental Estate
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the review of his Department's estate in London to be published. [95526]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Following on from the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) a detailed Strategic Development Plan for the Greater London area (SDP GL) is being prepared. Substantial progress has been made on this review of the Department's occupancy of its London-based estate and I expect to be able to make a statement early in the new year following our evaluation of its conclusions and recommendations.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for the most recent financial year contracts valued in excess of £10,000 including the value of each for(a) London, (b) the South-East of England, (c) England, (d) Scotland, (e) Wales and (f) Northern Ireland. [95352]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost. In aggregate the number and value of prime contracts valued in excess of £10,000 extant in Financial Year 1998–99 by the following locations is listed:

  1007

  Location

  No. of contracts

  Value of contracts (£)

  London

  3,026

  3,460,927,447

  South-East England

  10,734

  13,130,333,195

  England

  34,894

  54,202,614,303

  Scotland

  2,297

  3,346,377,904

  Wales

  923

  517,423,851

  Northern Ireland

  226

  587,707,167

  Forces Married Quarters
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is on the use of armed forces married quarters by forces personnel, after the breakdown of a marriage, during subsequent relationships. [96432]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD policy bans cohabitation in Family Quarters. Occupation is therefore restricted to Service personnel and their spouses, together with dependent children if applicable. While this policy is kept under review, there are currently no plans to change it.

  In the event of marital breakdown, the Marital Category of the Service person is changed from married to single. At this point, unless the Service person has custodial responsibilities for a child, they are no longer entitled to occupy a Family Quarter and are consequently required to move into single living accommodation. The estranged family is also required to vacate the Family Quarter, but is given a 93-day notice period in which to do so. However, individual circumstances are given consideration consistent with service requirements.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Spending
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the levels of spending on education per head of the population in each county of England in each year since 1995–96. [94313]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Accurate information per head of population is not available for each of the years requested. Information has, therefore, been provided on the basis of expenditure per pupil. The information contained in the tables shows for each county in England, (i) total spending in primary, secondary and special schools since 1995, (ii) the total number of pupils in those schools, and (iii) the total spending per pupil.

  Emotional Development (Children)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the ability of schools to provide conditions for formative emotional development. [95218]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government is committed to fostering children's emotional well-being and to doing 1008
  everything they can to ensure that they have the emotional maturity and security necessary for effective learning. This is a key theme of the Government's booklet "Desirable Outcomes for Children's Learning" and the recently launched Early Learning Goals.

  We are making £21 million available through the Standards Fund for 2000–01 to support innovative work in Local Education Authorities on early identification and assessment of emotional and behavioural difficulties. A further £18 million of Standards Fund Grant is available to support implementation of the revised National Curriculum framework. Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) in the Curriculum contains provision for pupils to learn how to recognise the symptoms and address the causes of stress and depression.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many additional personal computers there are in schools as a result of the National Grid for Learning Initiative. [95639]

  Jacqui Smith
  A Statistical First Release, published in August, indicated that in 1999 there was, on average, one computer for every 13 pupils in primary schools compared to every 18 pupils in 1998. Similarly in secondary schools, there was one computer for every eight pupils in 1999 compared to every nine pupils in 1998. These are the first signs of the effect of the Government's focused investment on ICT in schools through the National Grid for Learning programme and we expect to see further improvement over the next two years.

  School Security
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to assess the threat to security of school premises arising from adjacent public rights of way. [94945]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: We treat the issue of school security very seriously and support measures which make schools a safer and more secure environment for pupils and staff. The Department's Working Group on School Security, which includes a representative from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), has specifically highlighted public rights of way across school premises an issue to be addressed, and is aware of some local cases. The recent DETR consultation paper, Improving Public Rights of Way in England and Wales, accordingly invited views on proposals to enable highway authorities to divert or close public highways where to do so would protect the safety of the public. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, will announce decisions in the light of the consultations on this in due course. The Department also continues to provide specific grant for school security measures under the Standards Fund: a total of £22 million per year is available specifically for school security improvements, which may include security fencing and other access control measures in order to prevent intrusion.

  A/S Levels
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects syllabuses for A/S level subjects to be available. [95868]

  Mr. Wicks
  Draft versions of the specifications for all the new Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced level qualifications to be introduced for teaching from September 2000 are now available on the awarding bodies' websites. Synopses of the draft specifications are also available on the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's website. The finalised specifications will be available to schools and colleges in January 2000.

  Franchising
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from the further education sector concerning the proposed changes to the funding arrangements for franchising; and if he will make a statement. [95873]

  Mr. Wicks
  Representations were invited by the Further Education Funding Council in February 1999 on proposals to tackle the serious problems which had arisen with franchising in some colleges. 153 representations were received of which 136 were from further education colleges. A large majority supported the proposed changes for 1999–2000 which were introduced in July.

  PE Teachers
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many PE teachers there were in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools; and what they were as a percentage of the total number of teachers in England, for each year since 1991. [95492]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is as follows:

  PE teachers in secondary schools in England

  Academic year

  1991–92

  1996–97

  Number of Teachers1 teaching PE

  24,000

  20,000

  Teachers1 teaching PE as percentage of all teachers

  14

  12

  1 Includes teachers without a specific PE qualification

  Amount received (£)

  Amount drawn down (£)

  Percentage drawn down

  Balance available (£)

  Amount committed (£)

  Arts Council of England

  1,197,614,609

  920,492,229

  77

  277,122,380

  1,132,457,415

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  42,419,281

  16,607,723

  39

  25,811,558

  35,467,589

  Scottish Arts Council

  130,640,795

  79,801,991

  61

  50,838,804

  116,821,408

  Arts Council of Wales

  72,650,470

  48,852,619

  67

  23,797,851

  77,310,838

  National Lottery Charities Board

  1,479,051,437

  834,882,356

  56

  644,169,081

  1,384,382,465

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  1,497,290,954

  614,906,973

  41

  882,383,981

  1,223,222,820

  Millennium Commission

  1,662,106,529

  941,790,686

  57

  720,315,843

  1,744,220,362

  New Opportunities Fund

  428,058,277

  9,768,541

  2

  418,289,736

  12,984,543

  Sport England

  1,228,733,896

  760,081,000

  62

  468,652,896

  959,416,652

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  40,784,238

  25,640,265

  63

  15,143,973

  31,634,959

  Sport Scotland

  131,782,828

  58,540,070

  44

  73,242,758

  84,351,394

  UK Sport

  6,865,190

  1,839,362

  27

  5,025,828

  1,394,723

  Sports Council for Wales

  73,154,628

  44,518,258

  61

  28,636,370

  46,176,789

  Total

  7,991,153,132

  4,357,722,073

  55

  3,633,431,059

  6,849,841,957

  1010
  Information about PE teachers in secondary schools for other years, and PE teachers in primary schools is not available.

  These reductions took place under the previous administration.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 27 July 1999,Official Report, columns 185–86, concerning class sizes (ref. 93239), when he plans to write to the hon. Member for Hertsmere. [96479]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I will be writing to the hon. Member next week.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what are, in respect of the revenue in the National Lottery Distributions Fund Reserve(a) the amount (1) received and (2) drawn down, (b) the percentage drawn down, (c) the balance available and (d) the amount committed for (i) the Arts Council of England, (ii) the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, (iii) the Scottish Arts Council, (iv) the Arts Council of Wales, (v) the National Lottery's Charities Board, (vi) the National Heritage Memorial Fund, (vii) the Millennium Commission, (viii) the New Opportunities Fund, (ix) Sport England, (x) the Sports Council of Northern Ireland, (xi) the Scottish Sports Council, (xii) the UK Sports Council and (xiii) the Sports Council for Wales and (xiv) the total of the above. [95486]

  Kate Hoey
  The following table shows the figures requested, as at 30 September 1999. In addition to the figures shown here, the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts has received an endowment of £200 million from the National Lottery, all of which has been drawn down from the National Lottery Distribution Fund.

  Figures for the amount committed are taken from the National Lottery Awards Database using information supplied by the distributors. They do not include money set aside for a specific purpose but not committed to a particular project.
  1011
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the percentage drawn down for National Lottery expenditure allocations(a) in the UK and (b) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [95493]

  Kate Hoey
  56 per cent. of the money paid into the National Lottery Distribution Fund has been drawn down for use by the National Lottery distributing bodies. A further 31 per cent. has been firmly committed but not yet drawn down.

  I have made no assessment of the percentages drawn down by lotteries overseas. Given the different ways in which Lottery surpluses are used around the world, I do not believe such comparisons would be helpful. For example, the surplus of many state lotteries are paid straight to the national exchequers, so the question of draw down does not arise.

  I am keen to ensure that National Lottery money should be put to effective use as quickly as possible. Many of the reforms that the Government have introduced—such as moving the focus of the Lottery from buildings to people and allowing distributors to delegate their functions—should help to facilitate this.

  Sports Strategy
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in announcing his Department's sports strategy. [95485]

  Kate Hoey
  The sports policy paper will be published early next year. In order for the paper to be truly effective, it is important that there is the widest possible period in which to consult and canvass opinion.

  VAT (Listed Buildings)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received regarding VAT on work on listed buildings; and if he will make a statement. [95489]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In the year to 26 October 1999, this Department received 13 representations from organisations and individuals on the subject of VAT on work to listed buildings.

  Responsibility for VAT rests with HM Treasury. There is no provision in current EC law to apply a reduced rate to all listed buildings.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what will be the total sums for each of the next four years to be allocated to out-of-school-hours child care places from the New Opportunities Fund. [95487]

  Kate Hoey
  The New Opportunities Fund is required by the Policy Directions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued to allocate £220 million in total to out-of-school hours child care places by 2002. There is no pre-determined annual profile for expenditure:1012
  the actual allocation of funding is a matter for the New Opportunities Fund taking into account the local child care plans drawn up by the local child care partnerships.

  Local Authority Funding
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions regarding the amount of funding provided by local authorities to(a) the arts, (b) museums and galleries and (c) supporting the upkeep of listed buildings. [95488]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not had any recent discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on these subjects. Officials in the two departments keep in regular touch.

  Physical Education
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Education and Employment about the role of physical education and sport in the national curriculum. [95952]

  Kate Hoey
  Ministers and officials from DCMS and DfEE work closely together and share a common aim to improve the quality of Physical Education and sport provision in schools. DCMS was involved in the National Curriculum Review announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in September. We welcome the restoration of the PE programme of study for primary schools, to be re-introduced from September 2000.

  On 5 October, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), and I both spoke at the Sport England Conference "Education and Sport". We are also working together to develop the Active Schools Sports Co-ordinators initiative in schools. I have met with, and will continue to meet, my hon. Friend to discuss Physical Education and sport in schools.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Solicitor-General what was the cost to public funds of the prosecution of cases, subsequently discontinued, for contravention of bye-laws relating to RAF Menwith Hill; and if he will make a statement. [95745]

  The Solicitor-General
  The prosecution costs arising from these proceedings are estimated at £700, which includes the cost of case preparation, conferences, and court attendance by a senior Crown Prosecutor at the magistrates court. The figure does not include work undertaken for the test case at the Crown Court and subsequently in the Divisional Court, neither does it include the costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service in discussion with the Ministry of Defence police about prosecution policy in general.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Holocaust Survivors
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the banking industry concerning the amount of bank charges levied for the conversion to sterling from deutchmarks of sums awarded to holocaust survivors; what response he has received from the banking industry; and if he will make a statement. [94822]

  Mr. Byers
  I am pursuing this matter with the banking industry and will write to my hon. Friend in due course. I will place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Tunisia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many licences for military, security and police exports to Tunisia have been approved by his Department in the last five years; and if he will list the nature of the equipment, together with any current applications being considered. [95098]

  Dr. Howells
  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued for the export to Tunisia of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1 January 1997 to 1 May 1997

  1998

  1 January 1999 to 12 October 1999

  ML1

  1

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  ML2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  ML3

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  ML4

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  ML5

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  ML7

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  ML9

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  ML10

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  ML11

  4

  2

  4

  1

  2

  1

  ML13

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML15

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  PL5001

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  PL5006

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  PL5017

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  PL5027

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Open Individual Export Licences issued for the export to Tunisia of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1 January 1997 to 1 May 1997

  1998

  ML1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  ML2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML3

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML4

  5

  0

  0

  1

  0

  ML5

  4

  1

  2

  1

  0

  ML6

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML8

  6

  1

  0

  1

  1

  ML9

  2

  0

  1

  1

  1

  ML10

  14

  3

  2

  3

  2

  ML11

  6

  2

  1

  1

  1

  ML13

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  ML14

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  ML15

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  1014
  databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 January 1994 and 12 October 1999, 57 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued for the export to consignees or end-users in Tunisia of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. Between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1998, 71 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued for the export to Tunisia of such goods; no OIELs were issued for the export of such goods to Tunisia between 1 January and 12 October 1999.

  Details of all SIELs and OIELs issued between 2 May and 31 December 1997 were set out in the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in March 1999. This Report gives details of the military equipment licensed for export during the period as well as the ratings of these goods. Similar details of the military equipment licensed in later years will be set out in the relevant Annual Reports.

  A breakdown of the licences issued between 1 January 1994 and 1 May 1997, and between 1 January 1998 and 12 October 1999 are set out in the table. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings (and OIELs may also cover a range of countries). Where this is so, the licence is included in the Table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Open Individual Export Licences issued for the export to Tunisia of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1 January 1997 to 1 May 1997

  1998

  ML16

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML18

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  ML22

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  PL5001

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  PL5002

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  PL5018

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  PL5027

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  At 12 October 1999, decisions had not yet been taken on seven applications for OIELs to export such goods to Tunisia; there are no such applications pending for SIELs.
  1015

  Pending applications for OIELs covering the export of goods on the Military List to Tunisia

  Rating

  Number of applications pending

  ML9

  3

  ML10

  3

  ML18

  1

  ML22

  3

  PL5017

  1

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307-08.

  In addition, Tunisia is a permitted destination on certain Open General Export Licences, covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will assess the output of the resource allocation under the comprehensive spending review; and what sectors of the economy he plans to examine as part of this study. [95797]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department has monitoring processes in place to assess progress against the targets set in its Public Service Agreement on the basis of the CSR settlement for 1999–2001. This work covers the economy as a whole, for example through targets to narrow the productivity gap and improve performance against competitiveness indicators; there are also specific targets covering for example the small firms sector, exporters, uptake of e-commerce, energy and inward investment. Good progress is already being made; for example I have recently increased the target for the number of SMEs wired to the digital market place from 1 million to 1.5 million. Performance against all our targets will be considered in preparation for the next spending review, to set budgets to 2003–04.

  As my hon. Friend is aware, the Science Budget underpins all sectors of the economy and the social, health and environmental services. As a result of the science CSR settlement, successful proposals have been announced for the University Challenge and Science Enterprise Challenge initiatives, and for the first round of the now £750 million joint Infrastructure fund. As far as the additional allocations to the Research Councils are concerned, I have asked for a full report on the progress made so far as input to the current spending review.

  Trading Names
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to establish a statutory register of trading names. [95787]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no plans to establish a statutory register of trading names.

  Fraud
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce legislation to prevent trading and advertising of services by individuals who have been convicted for fraudulent behaviour in the provision of those services. [96470]

  Dr. Howells
  The Consumer White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" sets out details of the proposals to amend the Fair Trading Act 1973 to provide powers for the courts to grant injunctions against specific practices carried out by specified traders and to ban from trading for a period traders with a history of disregarding their legal obligations.

  Timeshares
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implementation of the EU Directive on Timeshares, which was adopted in United Kingdom law in April 1997. [R] [96318]

  Dr. Howells
  The EU Timeshare Directive was implemented in the United Kingdom by the Timeshare Regulations 1997, which amended the Timeshare Act 1992. The Timeshare Regulations were laid before Parliament on 25 March 1997 and came into force on 29 April 1997.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors underlay the granting of extensions to the period of validity of standard individual export and transhipment licences for transfer to Indonesia, for a period equivalent to the duration of the EU arms embargo; and what is his Department's policy towards the renewal of the embargo after 16 January 2000. [96114]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: By a Common Position, adopted on 16 September, EU member states decided to impose an arms embargo to Indonesia for four months. In accordance with this decision, the Government decided that all individual licences covering the export or transhipment to Indonesia of military goods or technology should be suspended for four months and that, because the embargo is time-limited, their period of validity should be extended by four months also. The UK and other EU member states are monitoring closely the situation in Indonesia and East Timor and will take whatever action becomes necessary.

  Belize
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Ministers in his Department visited Belize in each year between 1990 and 1997; and what support his Department gave Belize in each year. [96211]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: No DTI Ministers visited Belize in the period 1990–97.
  1017
  The full range of official trade promotion and support services is available to British companies who are interested in undertaking business in Belize. This included support for three trade missions, which visited Belize during the period in question:

  1991: CARITAG (Caribbean Trade Advisory Group) Investment Mission

  1996: CARITAG/LATAG (Latin America Trade Advisory Group) Mission

  1997: CABCC (Central America British Chamber of Commerce) Mission.

  With the exception of the CARITAG investment mission, all the trade missions were non-sector specific and included companies representing a wide cross sector of industries and services.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which countries have(a) signed and (b) ratified the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. [96422]

  Dr. Howells
  (a) Forty-four States have signed protocols additional to their existing safeguards agreements: Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Holy See, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay and Uzbekistan. In addition, Cuba has concluded an Additional Protocol which it has not yet signed.

  (b) The Additional Protocols of seven States have entered into force: Australia, Holy See, Indonesia, Jordan, Monaco, New Zealand and Uzbekistan.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the voluntary arrangements by companies and institutions to fulfil the requirements of the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. [96416]

  Dr. Howells
  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was this week provided with voluntary declarations of information of the type which the UK will have to provide under Article 2 of the protocol additional to the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement once the protocol enters into force. The declarations were provided with the full co-operation of the relevant companies and institutions.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for bringing forward ratification of the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. [96420]

  Dr. Howells
  In order for the Protocol additional to the 1976 safeguards agreement between the United Kingdom, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Atomic Energy Community to enter into force,1018
  primary legislation is required, the Government are considering how legislation for this purpose may best be brought forward at an early date.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the Government schemes and programmes that will be delivered by the Small Business Service. [96563]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Small Business Service will provide access to a comprehensive range of information, advice, counselling and support from government, public, private and voluntary sectors.

  International Trade Strategy
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the national strategy for international trade development and promotion. [96906]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am pleased to announce today, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the publication of the national strategy for international trade development and promotion.

  I am arranging for copies of the strategy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Regional Venture Capital Funds
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the consultation on the paper, "Addressing the SME Equity Gap-Support for Regional Venture Capital Funds". [96907]

  Mr. Byers
  I announced to the House on 6 July 1999,Official Report, columns 454-55, that the Government were seeking views on the design and form of the support for the creation of the Regional Venture Capital element of the Enterprise Fund.

  During the consultation exercise over 1,000 copies of the consultation document, "Addressing the SME Equity Gap—Support for Regional Venture Capital Funds" were distributed and over 100 replies have been received. The distribution and replies covered a wide range of interested groups and individuals; entrepreneurs, small firms, Regional Development Agencies, the venture capital and finance industries, business support organisations, local authorities, academics and other interested parties.

  The proposals for Regional Venture Capital Funds received a significant level of support from respondents. 100 per cent. of SMEs and entrepreneurs supported the outlined proposals as appropriate methods of motivating the creation of viable, regionally based venture capital funds to invest in the equity gap. And over 89 per cent. of all respondents expressed the same view. There was widespread agreement that the lack of small scale equity finance was an inhibitor to growth, especially for SMEs. A full summary of responses to the consultation document have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In November, the Government will issue bidding guidance, informed by the responses to the consultation

  1019
  exercise, to Regional Partnerships proposing to stimulate the creation of Regional Venture Capital Funds.

WALES

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he(a) has established and (b) published a baseline for policy appraisal against which to measure progress on equal treatment. [94857]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has no executive responsibilities. For the staff of my Department, most of whom are on secondment from the National Assembly for Wales, my office has adopted the policies of the Assembly which are identical to those of the former Welsh Office.

  New Deal Environmental Task Force
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what projects are currently being undertaken under the New Deal Environmental Task Force within the Llanelli constituency. [95791]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The contract for the Environmental Task Force option in the Llanelli constituency area is held by Carmarthenshire County Council. The Council then sub contract to:

  Carmarthenshire Training—offer fencing/riverbank maintenance/stream improvement opportunities.

  Foothold Crochan—recycle white goods (cookers, fridges, etc.) and furniture at their centre in Trostre.

  Princes Trust—offer their 26 week national programme (team building/motivation/employer placement).

  National Trust—undertake fencing/planting/chainsaw/footpath maintenance providing an excellent grounding in rural and forestry skills.

  Jobforce Wales—is converting the disused Mynydd Mawr railway into a footpath and also operate a woodcraft centre.

  British Trust for Conservation Volunteers—are undertaking landscape improvement and nature conservation work at the Mynydd Mawr Woodland/Eco Park at Tumble.

  Consultants
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money the Welsh Office spent on consultants for each of the last three years up to 7 May. [96551]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following figures detail Welsh Office expenditure on consultants in the relevant financial years, running from 1 April to the following 31 March.

  Persons1removed or departed voluntarily under port or enforcement procedures, 1996 to 1998

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total number of persons removed or departed voluntarily from the United Kingdom

  26,840

  31,150

  34,900

  Of whom asylum2,3 applicants

  4,840

  7,160

  6,890

  Total number of persons removed or made a voluntary departure as a result of deportation action being taken against them

  2,000

  2,070

  1,710

  Of whom asylum2,3 applicants

  400

  450

  350

  1 Does not include persons who may leave the United Kingdom without informing the Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  2 Asylum removals and voluntary departures excludes dependants

  3 1998 figures are provisional

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to 10
  1020

  Year

  £

  1995–97

  739,363

  1997–98

  1,311,459

  1998–99

  1,836,194

  This information is not readily available for periods beginning 8 May and running to the following 7 May, and could be provided in that format only at disproportionate cost.

  Welsh Office Contracts (PR)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contracts have been awarded by the Welsh Office in the last year to(a) the public relations company, Good Relations and (b) the public relations company, HHCL. [96553]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Howell Henry Chauldecott Lowry (HHCL) were the advertising agency appointed on behalf of the Welsh Office by the Central Office of Information to work on the Assembly Information Campaign. That is the only contract awarded to this company in the last year.

  Bell Pottinger Good Relations were sub-contracted by HHCL to work on "free media", which formed a part of the Assembly Information Campaign. They were also awarded a contract directly by the Welsh Office to assist with the establishment and maintenance of a web-site for National Assembly for Wales.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Deportations
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been deported from the UK in each of the last three years for which figures are available as(a) failed asylum seekers and (b) others whose appeals under immigration law have failed. [95444]

  Mrs. Roche
  The total number of people who have been removed or made a voluntary departure from the United Kingdom between 1996 and 1998 is shown in the table. The table also shows the number of asylum applicants who were removed or left voluntarily in each of the three years, the number who were removed or left the United Kingdom as a result of deportation action being taken against them, and the number of people in that group who had claimed asylum at some stage. Information about the number who had appealed unsuccessfully before removal is not collected centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times Ministers in his Department have met members and officials of the United States Government since 22 February, specifying the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers

  Name

  Date

  Location

  Minister: Paul Boateng

  George Dragnich, Labour Counsellor, American Embassy

  18 May 1999

  London

  Elizabeth Fine, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Policy Development, Department of Justice

  3 June 1999

  Washington DC

  Jeremy Travis, Director of National Institute for Justice

  3 June 1999

  Washington DC

  Jose Cerda, Domestic Policy Adviser to the President

  4 June 1999

  Washington DC

  Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General

  4 June 1999

  Washington DC

  Jim Robinson, Assistant Attorney General (Criminal Division)

  4 June 1999

  Washington DC

  Mark Richard, Deputy Assistant Attorney General (Criminal Division)

  4 June 1999

  Washington DC

  General Barry McCaffrey, Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy

  25 October 1999

  London

  Possible:

  Lynne Battiglia, United States Attorney, District of Maryland

  1 June 1999

  Baltimore

  Donnie Marshall, Acting Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration

  1 June 1999

  Washington DC

  Louis Freeh, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

  2 June 1999

  Washington DC

  Minister: Charles Clarke

  United States Attorney Journal, Ms Janet Reno

  25 October 1999

  United States Embassy Moscow

  Officials from United States Justice Department

  25 October 1999

  United States Embassy Moscow

  Embassy officials

  25 October 1999

  United States Embassy Moscow

  United States Drugs Tsar, General Barry McCaffrey

  25 October 1999

  London

  Bob Agresti—Policy Advisor

  25 October 1999

  London

  George Dragnich—United States Embassy

  25 October 1999

  London

  In addition, I keep in regular touch with Ms Reno both by letter and by telephone.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings he held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visits to the United States on 9-10 December 1997; and if he will list the date and location of each meeting, and the names of the members and officials of the United States Government at each meeting. [93952]

  Mr. Straw
  When I attended the G8 Ministerial meeting, in the United States of America, in February 1997, I held one meeting with the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and one meeting with the Attorney General. I keep in close and regular touch with the Attorney General by memo, by letter, and by telephone.

  Suspended Sentences
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to widen the opportunities for the judiciary to impose suspended sentences of imprisonment. [95474]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Suspended sentences may be imposed only in "exceptional circumstances". Widening the opportunities for their use was one of the recommendations in the Home Affairs Committee's Report on Alternatives to Prison Sentences, published in 1998. As the Government's Reply to the Report noted, we are considering this issue, taking account of the Committee's views.
  1022
  involved at each meeting; and the names of the members and officials of the United States Government at each meeting. [93951]

  Mr. Straw
  Information on meetings between my Ministers and members and officials of the United States Government since 22 February are listed in the table.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Torbay of 8 July regarding Mrs. Shani Green's application for British residency. [95763]

  Mrs. Roche
  Mrs. Green has been granted 12 months leave to remain on the basis of her marriage. I wrote to the hon. Gentleman to this effect on 28 October.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 9 July on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. Newman. [96285]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 28 October in response to his letter of 9 July on behalf of his constituent, Mrs. Newman. I am extremely sorry that I was unable to do so sooner, and would like, through the right hon. Member, to extend my apology to Mrs. Newman.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 5 July on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Pottinger. [96286]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 28 October in response to his letter of 5 July on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Pottinger. I am extremely sorry that I was unable to do so sooner, and, through the right hon. Member, would like to extend my apology to Mr. Pottinger.
  1023
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect replies to his letters of 6 July, 10 August, 7 September and 27 September on behalf of his constituent, Dr. N. of Stranground, Peterborough. [96284]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 28 October.

  Remembrance Sunday
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to rename Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday. [96028]

  Mr. Straw
  We have no plans to rename Armistice Day (11 November) or Remembrance Sunday (the second Sunday in November).

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions(a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department hold each year with (i) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and (ii) other senior Metropolitan Police personnel on the policing of state visits to the capital; [96218]

  (2) what discussions (a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department hold each year with (i) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and (ii) other senior Metropolitan Police personnel on the maintenance of public order within (1) the royal parks and (2) the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster; [96214]

  (3) what discussions (a) he, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) officials in his Department had with (i) the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and (ii) other senior Metropolitan Police personnel on the plans for policing the recent visit of the President of the People's Republic of China. [96215]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary meets regularly with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss policing issues in London, and there are regular contacts with the Metropolitan Police at both Ministerial and official level. There were no specific discussions of the issues specified at my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary's meetings, prior to the Chinese State Visit nor, as far as can be ascertained, at other meetings between Ministers and officials and the Metropolitan Police. At a regular meeting between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Commissioner on 27 October, the Commissioner told my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the Metropolitan Police were conducting an internal review into the policing of the visit of the President of China.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance representatives from his 1024
  Department issued to the police responsible for the policing of the visit by the Chinese President pertaining to the treatment of demonstrators. [96581]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations were made by his Department to the Royal Parks Police about the policing of the state visit of the President of China. [96490]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings were held between his Department and the Royal Parks Police about the policing of the state visit of the President of China. [96489]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how may anti-social behaviour orders have been implemented in each police authority area. [96450]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the number of Orders made is not held centrally, but we are aware of six Orders made since 1 April 1999, as follows:

  Avon and Somerset—1

  Derbyshire—2

  Merseyside—2

  West Mercia—1.

  Police
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of police officers who will leave the police service over the next three years. [95577]

  Mr. Straw
  Given the uncertainty surrounding the number of officers who take early retirement on medical grounds or who leave the service before normal retirement age for other reasons, it is not possible to project actual wastage in the future. However, the actual wastage over the last three years has been running at around five and a half thousand per year. The hon. Member will wish to be aware of papers and calculations, which I presented to the Home Affairs Select Committee on Tuesday 26 October, which had been prepared by the Research, Development and Statistics Directorate of my Department and by Professor Buck of Essex University. I am sending the hon. Member a copy, and copies are also available in the Library.

  Dangerous Driving
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the issue of deaths caused by negligent or dangerous driving. [95110]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  Research is currently in progress to study the effect of the Road Traffic Act 1991 on prosecutions for dangerous driving. The project, which is being undertaken for the

  1025
  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions by the Transport Research Laboratory, began in May 1998 and is due to be completed in October 2000.

  Issues covered by the study include: whether there is sufficiently clear guidance on the law and its purpose, and how this affects the choice of penalty; comparison of sentencing trends before and since the 1991 Act; and how the changes in the definition of "bad driving" offences have been implemented by police and courts.

  The aim is to obtain an understanding of what leads prosecutors and courts to select one offence or one penalty rather than another. By examining the whole procedure from charging to sentencing, it may be possible to identify ways of improving practice, so as to deter poor driving more effectively.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners (Benefits)
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners receive(a) Income Support, (b) Housing Benefit and (c) Council Tax Benefit in each region of the UK. [95659]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Pensioners in receipt of income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit by region, Great Britain, May 1998

  Thousand

  Income Support

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  North East

  92

  115

  151

  North West

  234

  228

  349

  Yorks and Humberside

  160

  186

  261

  East Midlands

  111

  120

  180

  West Midlands

  172

  175

  270

  Eastern

  126

  146

  210

  London

  204

  231

  288

  South East

  168

  188

  257

  South West

  128

  124

  191

  Wales

  94

  88

  134

  Scotland

  169

  225

  303

  Great Britain

  1,659

  1,826

  2,593

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where either the claimant and/or the partner is aged 60 or over.

  2. Figures are for benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. The Income Support figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of Income Support claimants, the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample and as such figures are subject to a degree of sampling error.

  4. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  5. The data for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are provisional and may be subject to change.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1998. Later Income Support data are held, the Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry May 1999 refers.

  2. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Annual 1 per cent. Sample for Great Britain as at 14 May 1998.

  1026

  Pensioners in Northern Ireland in receipt of income support as at 31 August 1999 and housing benefit as at 31 May 1999

  Number

  Income support August 1999

  71,308

  Housing benefit May 1999

  46,012

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners are defined as benefit units where either the claimant and/or the partner is aged 60.

  2. Figures are for benefit units which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. Figures are based on a 100 per cent. scan of Income Support claimants as at August 1999 and Housing Benefit Claimants as at May 1999, for Northern Ireland.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support—General Matching Service 100 per cent. scan, August 1999.

  2. Housing Benefit—Northern Ireland Housing Executive 100 per cent. scan, May 1999.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are not yet receiving their full benefit entitlement because of NIRSII computer problems. [96278]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 22 July 1999,Official Report, columns 575–76.

  Benefit Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will provide a breakdown of the expenditure on relaunching the Benefit Fraud Hotline; [96277]

  (2) what is the period of the Fraud Hotline advertising campaign covered by the expenditure announced on 25 October. [96279]

  Mr. Rooker
  The National Benefit Fraud Hotline has not been re-launched. It has been running continuously since August 1996. A further marketing campaign will run from 1 November 1999 to 24 March 2000.

  The campaign has a budget of £450,000. The breakdown of expenditure is as follows:

  £000

  Radio media costs

  360

  Press media costs

  54

  Production (including posters for BA offices)

  36

  Total

  450

HEALTH

  Merseyside Health Action Zone
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Merseyside Health Action Zone programme will tackle ill health, accidents and violence due to alcohol abuse. [94634]

  Mr. Hutton
  Merseyside Health Action Zone has recognised the effect of problem drinking on the health and quality of life for individuals, their families and the
  1027
  wider community. The HAZ has developed plans to address this issue, which include locally developed interventions whereby each district on Merseyside is developing their own schemes to deal with alcohol, linking to the Drug Action Team Plan and Health Improvement Programmes. The "Arrest Referral Scheme" is a Mersey-wide proposal that will work closely with Merseyside Police and the Safer Merseyside Partnership single regeneration budget to provide support to individuals who have been arrested and to put them in touch with relevant services relating to drugs, alcohol, housing, debt and benefit advice and health care services.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Merseyside Health Action Zone programme will empower people to manage common illnesses. [94632]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Merseyside Health Action Zone programme includes a number of interventions, which will empower people to manage common illnesses. These will complement other Government initiatives like NHS Direct and walk-in centres. An example of a HAZ scheme being developed allows pharmacists to dispense free over-the-counter medication to eligible patients for the treatment of colds and minor ailments without the need to visit their general practitioner.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Merseyside Health Action Zone will ensure equal access to quality services for cardio respiratory disease, cancer, infectious disease and mental health. [94631]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ensuring equal access to quality services is a main theme of the Merseyside Health Action Zone. Schemes are being developed and implemented to tackle these major causes of ill health. HAZ funding is being used in an innovative way to set up "Community Cardiology Teams" that will help optimise the care of the estimated 600,000 coronary heart disease sufferers on Merseyside. The HAZ has a further scheme to improve the uptake of influenza vaccination within vulnerable groups e.g. people with chronic heart or respiratory disease.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve and modernise health services on(a) Merseyside and (b) in Sefton. [94652]

  Mr. Hutton
  Merseyside Health Action Zone is already developing and implementing plans to improve and modernise health services across the whole of Merseyside, including Sefton. The current schemes include £550,000 to tackle coronary heart disease and a further £500,000 to invest in cancer services across Merseyside. The HAZ has also identified £250,000 to support the centralisation of hospital based infectious disease services for Merseyside.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the Merseyside Health Action Zone. [94650]

  Mr. Hutton
  Merseyside Health Action Zone is the largest and most complex in the country. Significant energy is being invested in building the partnership across the whole of Merseyside. The HAZ is already implementing schemes both to modernise services and tackle the underlying causes of ill health. Schemes include work to further tackle heart disease and cancer.

  Patient-controlled Analgesia
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress is being made in introducing patient-controlled analgesia(a) intravenously and (b) orally in NHS hospitals; [95080]

  (2) how many NHS hospitals or trusts have introduced patient-controlled analgesia (a) intravenously and (b) orally. [95081]

  Mr. Hutton
  Oral analgesia, taken regularly or as required, is available in all National Health Service hospitals where surgery takes place. Patient controlled analgesia administrated intravenously is a safe and effective method of delivering pain relief which is becoming the standard method of administering opioid analgesia in hospitals where major surgery takes place.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that elderly people in need of places in nursing homes can be transferred from NHS hospitals when they are declared ready to be discharged. [95559]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are working to modernise health and social services and are undertaking a number of relevant activities. Promoting independence is a joint priority for the National Health Service and social services and a key element of this is ensuring that people are not kept in hospital when they do not need to be there. The Health Act 1999 provides new opportunities for health and local authorities to work together in partnership to improve the health of individuals and communities.

  We are developing a National Service Framework for Older People to drive up quality and reduce variation in health care for older people. The National Service Framework is being developed with the assistance of an external reference group which, amongst other things, is considering transitions to, from and within hospitals.

  We have allocated £887 million over three years to local authorities to help them work with the NHS to develop services which prevent admission to hospital and facilitate early discharge, which help local authorities and NHS bodies to provide more seamless care and which help and support carers.

  NHS Research Scientists
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total establishment of research scientists within the NHS by salary grade; and how many are currently employed at the lowest grade. [95683]

  Mr. Hutton
  Research in the National Health Service is undertaken by a range of staff groups and grades. Workforce information relating to the number of research scientists employed by the NHS is not available.

  Wingrove Nurses Home
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the sale of the Wingrove Nurses Home, Westgate Road, Newcastle, has been completed; and what is the name of the purchaser. [95875]
  1029
  Mr. Hutton
  The property has been sold subject to contract to Angel Heights Developments Limited. However, contracts have not yet been exchanged, and therefore the sale has not been finalised.

  Junior Doctors (Overtime)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to alter the rules on overtime for junior doctors so that they are paid more for working overtime. [95539]

  Mr. Hutton
  Traditionally, junior doctors are contracted for duty hours in excess of the standard working week in order to provide continuity of patient care and also to meet their professional and career training needs. These additional duty hours reflect the hours for which the doctor is contracted to be available to work and not the number of hours actually worked.

  We have now reached agreement with the junior doctors' negotiators on the principles and structure of a new contract which will replace the old, over-complicated arrangements for next year. We propose a three-year deal to modernise junior doctors' pay, which promises greater rewards for those in the hardest working posts. This will mean that posts will be defined and rewarded according to agreed intensity criteria. Officials are currently negotiating these definitions with the junior doctor negotiators.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when measures will be in place to regulate the operation of children's homes which cater for under four children; and if he will make a statement. [95663]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: We intend to extend regulation to children's homes which accommodate fewer than four children as soon as we have the legislative opportunity. In the meantime we are considering how we might introduce a voluntary accreditation scheme for such homes.

  Care Home Fees
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the category of persons who are admitted to(a) nursing homes and (b) residential care homes who are required to pay for their accommodation and care; and if he will make a statement. [95718]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: Where a person is provided with accommodation under Part III of the National Assistance Act 1948, section 22 of that Act provides for them to be charged for the accommodation. Part III places a duty on local authorities to provide accommodation:
  for persons aged 18 or over who, by reason of age, illness, disability or any other circumstances are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them;
  for expectant or nursing mothers who are in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them.

  Section 22 requires the local authority to set a standard rate for the accommodation.
  1030
  The National Health Service may fund placements in nursing homes for people who are eligible for continuing NHS in-patient care.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that anyone who requires dentistry work can register with an NHS dentist and receive dentistry work under the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [95667]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: We are aware of the existence of problems in accessing National Health dental services in some parts of the country, particularly in some rural areas, which we inherited from the previous administration, and which we have taken positive steps to address through the Investing in Dentistry and Personal Dental Services initiatives.

  Schemes approved under the Investing in Dentistry initiative should enable nearly 800,000 patients to access NHS dental services. A first wave of 15 Personal Dental Service pilots began in October 1998, and a second wave of pilots will start later this year. Many of the pilots are in areas where patients have had difficulty finding a NHS dentist.

  On the 28 September, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced plans to introduce 30 NHS Dental Access Centres over the next two years and the use of NHS Direct to further improve patients' access to NHS dental care. Further measures to tackle the problem of access will be announced in the Government's Dental Strategy, which will be published later this year.

  Community Hospitals (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make an announcement on the future of community hospitals in Oxfordshire; and if he will make a statement. [95984]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fully recognises the concerns of the local community on such an important issue.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is carefully considering all options before reaching a final decision on the future arrangements for community hospitals in Oxfordshire and the future of Bicester Community Hospital.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Oxfordshire Ambulance NHS Trust is millennium compliant. [96005]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 30 September 1999, the Action 2000 Traffic Light Score, used to assess the readiness of organisations for the Year 2000, was Blue.

  A Blue score indicates that assessment of the organisation has not identified any risk of material disruption.

  Food Labelling (Nuts)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to issue guidance on the labelling of nuts
  1031
  in food products following the report of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. [93554]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission is expected to bring forward a proposal by the end of the year, which will extend current labelling requirements for pre-packaged foods so that the presence of added allergens such as nuts will always be declared. Organisations representing UK manufacturers and retailers have already produced general guidance notes for their members on allergens and are preparing specific guidelines on labelling. We are continuing to urge industry to take action on so-called 'defensive labelling' such as 'may contain nuts' so that it is restricted to cases where it is absolutely essential.

SCOTLAND

  Timor Gap
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings were held by his(a) ministers and (b) officials to discuss Scottish investment in oil or gas developments in the Timor Gap; with whom these meetings were held; when they were set up; what the precise purpose of the meetings was; what involvement there was of Indonesian (i) Government ministers (ii) officials and (iii) businesses; and if he will make a statement. [95268]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have held any meetings to discuss Scottish investment in oil or gas developments in the Timor Gap. However, I hosted a dinner with an Australian delegation, led by Mr. Darryl Manzie, the Minister for Resource Development for the Northern Territories, on 3 September 1999. The delegation was visiting the UK to seek partnerships with British companies in relation to oil and gas developments in the Timor Gap and elsewhere. No Indonesian government ministers, officials or businesses were involved in this meeting.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants his Department employs in a research capacity(a) part-time and (b) full-time; and if he will list his Department's contracts for outside research since May. [96064]

  Dr. Reid
  There are no civil servants currently employed in my Department in a full-time or part-time research capacity. I will write to the hon. Member on the question of contracts for outside research since May.

TREASURY

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the surplus or deficit in the National Insurance Fund for each of the last five years; and what are the expected surpluses or deficits for each of the next five years; [94916]
  1032
  (2) what was the total amount of the National Insurance Fund for each of the last five financial years; and what is expected to be the total amount for each of the next five years. [94917]

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current surplus in the National Insurance Fund; and if he will estimate what the surplus will be for each of the next five years. [96056]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The available figures for Great Britain are provided in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  1Surplus/Deficit

  2Fund Balance

  1993–94

  1,112

  4,549

  1994–95

  2,279

  6,828

  1995–96

  1,008

  7,836

  1996–97

  -98

  7,737

  1997–98

  1,871

  9,608

  1998–99

  2,565

  12,173

  1999–2000

  1,529

  13,702

  2000–01

  1,630

  15,330

  2001–02

  1,390

  16,730

  1 Excess of receipts over repayments

  2 At the end of the year

  National Insurance Contributions Holiday
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) companies and (b) individuals have benefited from the national insurance contributions holiday since its inception. [94693]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The NIC holiday scheme was introduced in April 1996. By October 1999, only 16,175 individual holidays had been awarded. No information is available on the number of different employers benefiting from the scheme. NIC holidays were available only for jobs starting before 1 April 1999. The New Deal now provides much better methods of encouraging employers to take on the long term unemployed.

  The New Deal for young unemployed people was introduced nationally on April 6 1998. It had already been operating since January 5 in 12 pathfinder areas. The New Deal for Long-Term Unemployed People aged 25+ was introduced nationally on 29 June 1998. By the end of August 1999, 58,200 employers had signed a New Deal employer agreement, and by the end of July 1999, 18,660 young people had obtained a subsidised job through the New Deal. A further 4,630 people had gone into subsidised employment from the New Deal for Long-Term Unemployed People aged 25+.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the present state of discussions with the European Commission regarding infraction proceedings relating to air passenger duty. [95149]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The Government are considering their response and will make an announcement in due course.

  VAT (Church Repairs)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what power the Government have to reduce VAT on church repairs and maintenance. [95466]

  Dawn Primarolo
  European law does not offer a reduced VAT rate for church repairs and maintenance.

  Double Taxation Agreement (Georgia)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government of Georgia first approached the UK Government to agree a double taxation agreement; and when he estimates such an agreement will be concluded. [95469]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a draft agreement for consideration in June 1997. This is being studied carefully. The UK's programme of Double Taxation Agreement negotiations is planned well in advance and we have received no recent representations for an agreement with Georgia.

  Cigarette Import Prices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on Government policy towards implementation of Council Directive 1999/81/EC (OJ L211 of 11 August 1999); what was the vote of Her Majesty's Government on this issue; what assessment he has made of cigarette import prices consequential to this ruling, via accompanying tax-take effects; and if the matter was discussed with the Department of Health. [95499]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The provisions in Directive 99/81/EC, which was agreed unanimously in Council, do not require any change to UK legislation nor to Government policy. There are no practical implications for the UK tobacco market and, therefore, no effect on tobacco prices or on revenue receipts.

  Contributions Agency
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of his Department's staff were employed in the Contributions Agency a year before the passing of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act 1999; how many are currently so employed; and what the projection is one year hence following the transfer of functions to the Treasury. [95501]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The following information relates to staff in Contributions Agency/National Insurance Contributions Office at:

  31 March 1998, shortly after the Budget announcement of Contributions Agency/Inland Revenue merger;

  31 March 1999, date of merger;

  1 October 1999, latest position;

  31 March 2000, forecast 12 months after merger.

  Information from 1 April 1999 is for National Insurance Contributions Office only as former Contributions Agency staff in Field Operations are now included in Inland Revenue Regional Organisation and subject to their resource plans. The information for 31 March 2000 takes into account the re-organisation of National Insurance Contributions Office/Head Office from 1 November 1999.
  1034

  Contributions Agency including Field Operations

  National Insurance Contributions Office

  Grade

  31 March 1998

  31 March 1999

  1 October 1999

  31 March 2000

  E2

  2,362

  2,350

  1,333

  1,847

  E1

  3,145

  2,714

  2,264

  2,372

  D

  2,010

  2,187

  633

  598

  C2

  443

  455

  231

  193

  C1

  105

  115

  71

  72

  B

  49

  53

  48

  26

  SCS

  4

  6

  5

  4

  Total

  8,118

  7,880

  4,585

  5,112

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the taxation of companies, what his policy is on the accounting treatment of provisions in company accounts and its effect on capital allowances; and if he will make a statement. [95920]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A provision made in the accounts of a company carrying on a trade will be allowable for tax purposes if:the provision is in respect of allowable revenue expenditure
  the making of the provision accords with UK generally accepted accounting practice
  the timing of the expenditure in question is not affected by any specific tax rule
  the provision is sufficiently accurate.

  Capital allowances, by contrast, give relief for capital expenditure. The tax treatment of provisions, which, as the hon. Member will know, is affected by recent judicial decisions, therefore has no effect on the availability of capital allowances. The Inland Revenue continues to monitor developments in the law in this area.

  Tax Starting Rate
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost to public funds of reducing the starting rate of tax on savings by half. [96184]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The starting rate of tax does not apply to savings.

  Care in the Community
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the adequacy of the census data relating to the level of, and need for, care in the community; what guidance he has given to those answering census questions on care; what information he plans to collate with a view to submitting evidence to the Commission on Long-Term Care; and what discussions on the above matters he has held with the Department of Health. [96446]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The White Paper on the 2001 Census, published in March, announced the Government's proposals with respect to the questions to be asked in the next Census. This included, for the first time, a question on provision of care. This followed a lengthy and detailed consultation period including representations from both central and local government and others for a question on provision of care to be asked.
  1035
  The question on which the Department of Health has been fully consulted, and which has been successfully tested, focuses on the number of hours of care provided per week (defined as help or support to others with long-term physical or mental ill-health, with a disability, or with problems related to old age) in three bands for 1–19 hours, 20–49 hours and 50 or more hours.

  Final details will be announced in the Census Order and Regulations to be laid before Parliament shortly.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply (1) to his letter of 6 August on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Jackson; [96282]

  (2) his letter of 10 August on behalf of his constituent Mr. Field; [96513]

  (3) his letter of 8 September on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Gauvey; [96283]

  (4) his letter of 2 September on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Perkins. [96290]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman yesterday.

  VAT
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other EU countries about EU proposals to enable a reduced rate of VAT to apply to(a) labour-intensive industries and (b) work on listed buildings. [95490]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The terms of a draft Directive to allow member states to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain labour-intensive services have been discussed by the European Council of Finance Ministers on several occasions this year: final agreement was reached on 22 October.

  There have been no discussions specifically about a reduced rate for work on listed buildings.

  Debt Management Office
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the UK Debt Management Office's annual report and accounts for 1998–99. [96909]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The DMO's annual report and accounts for 1998–99, its first year of operation, are being published today. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Tax Law Rewrite
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if there have been further developments on the Tax Law Rewrite project. [96953]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Tax Law Rewrite project is continuing to make good progress. The Inland Revenue today published the project's eighth Exposure Draft, containing draft rewritten clauses on the savings and investment income of individuals. In due course, these clauses will be 1036
  included in a Bill, which will completely rewrite income tax legislation. Copies of the Exposure Draft will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Pensioners (Tax)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners will be paying tax at the higher rate in(a) 2010, (b) 2020, (c) 2030, (d) 2040 and (e) 2050, assuming that tax bands for pensioners are indexed to prices. [95537]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Reliable estimates cannot be given, due to uncertainty about levels of pensions and other income so many years ahead.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many, and what percentage of, pensioners paid income tax in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; and if he will estimate the number who will pay tax in 2000–01. [95733]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers and percentages of pensioners paying tax in 1997–98, and those estimated to pay tax in 1998–99 and 1999–2000, 2000–01, are as follows:

  Year

  Number of pensioner taxpayers (million)

  Percentage of all pensioners

  1997–98

  4.0

  37

  1998–99

  4.1

  39

  1999–2000

  3.8

  35

  2000–01

  4.0

  37

  Notes:

  1. The numbers are based on the 1997 Survey of Personal Incomes.

  2. Pensioners have been defined as women aged 60 and over and men aged 65 and over.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what marginal tax rates are faced by pensioners in different income groups, taking into account the payment of tax and the loss of eligibility for means-tested assistance. [95518]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  Average Marginal Reduction Rates across more than one benefit are not readily available. The information requested therefore could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Retraining Assistance
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of providing retraining assistance by(a) tax allowances or rebates and (b) facilitating career development loans at lower than commercial rates of interest for individuals in employment but at risk of becoming unemployed; and if he will make a statement. [94811]

  Mr. Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  Vocational Training Relief (VTR) is currently available to individuals paying for their own training/retraining in certain circumstances. Individuals who undergo retraining provided by their employer or former employer around the time of redundancy are exempt from income tax on

  1037
  the benefit of that retraining. This is in addition to the general tax exception for employees on the benefit in kind of work-related training funded by their employer.

  A national framework for individual learning accounts will be launched in 2000. Under this framework, individuals will be able to obtain 20 per cent. discounts, rather than tax relief, on the first £500 a year of a wide range of learning which they pay for—with 80 per cent. discounts for certain key courses, including computer literacy. Contributions paid by employers towards eligible learning for employees who hold individual learning accounts will qualify for a deduction from taxable profits. They will also be tax and NICs free in the hands of their employees, provided employers contribute to the learning accounts of their lowest paid workers on similar terms. Individual learning accounts will promote lifelong learning and encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own training and development.

  The Chancellor announced in this year's budget that VTR is to be withdrawn sometime in 2000–01, when the national framework for individual learning accounts is launched. The incentives announced for individual learning accounts provide a better means of targeting support from public funds than VTR.

  There are no immediate plans to change the terms under which loans are offered by banks under the Career Development Loan (CDL) scheme. However, we are actively looking at what improvements can be made to the provision of support for learning, to help individuals to access training. As part of this, we are keeping under review the operation and terms of the CDL scheme, and consideration of the terms under which individual learning accounts should be introduced, in accordance with the proposals in "The Learning Age" Green Paper.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer on 25 June 1999,Official Report, column 483, on special advisers, how many meetings his Special Adviser David Clark held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visit to the USA on 19 to 24 April, indicating the date and location of each meeting, and the names of the members and officials of the US Government at each meeting and the name of the US department to which they belong. [93963]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  David Clark, Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, accompanied the Secretary of State to the NATO Summit in Washington from 19 to 24 April. He was a member of the Foreign Secretary's official delegation, and, in this capacity, he attended official meetings with the Foreign Secretary.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 1999,Official Report, column 483, how many meetings his special adviser Andrew Hood held with members and officials of the United States Government during his visit to the USA on 20 to 23 June 1997; and what were the dates and locations of each
  1038
  meeting, the names of the members and officials of the US Government at each meeting and the name of the US department to which they belonged. [93912]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Andrew Hood, Special Adviser to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, accompanied the Foreign Secretary to the G7 Summit in Denver in June 1997. He was a member of the Foreign Secretary's official delegation, and, in this capacity, he attended official meetings with the Foreign Secretary.

  EC Directorate General
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the breakdown is by nationality of the senior grades in each EC Directorate General. [95408]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have obtained the information on the breakdown of nationality in each Directorate General from the European Commission. This information has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Georgia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the conduct of the general election in Georgia and on the activities of the Revival Party. [95815]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: Voting will take place in the Georgian parliamentary elections on 31 October. We have reports of some intimidation and obstruction of candidates and supporters on all sides during the campaign, as well as a single violent incident when a hand grenade was thrown into the garden of one of the candidates of the Socialist party, fortunately not resulting in any injuries. As well as observing the conduct of the election through the British Embassy in Tbilisi, the Government have committed £70,000 towards the OSCE monitoring mission for the elections, which will fund UK personnel in the management team and both long-term and short-term observers. We welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) as Special Representative of the Chairman in Office of the OSCE: he will co-present the findings of the monitors after the elections. We intend to wait until the official OSCE report on the elections is published before commenting more generally on the conduct of the elections.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Sri Lanka concerning the treatment of the Tamil minority. [96418]

  Mr. Hain
  We maintain a dialogue with the Sri Lankan Government on a wide range of issues including human rights. We shall continue to monitor the situation and will raise our concerns whenever appropriate.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what meetings took place between his Department and the Metropolitan
  1039
  Police at which the policing and public order implications of the state visit of the President of China were discussed; [96408]

  (2) what representations his Department made to the Royal Parks Police about the policing of the State Visit of the President of China; [96488]

  (3) what meetings were held between his Department and the Royal Parks Police about the state visit of the President of China. [96492]

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings took place between Foreign Office officials and the police to discuss the policing of protestors during the visit of the President of China; if he will publish the minutes of those meetings; and if he will make a statement. [96458]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 28 October 1999,Official Report, column 993.

  Immigration
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the waiting time for interviews for settlement purposes at posts in(a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Bangladesh. [95947]

  Mr. Vaz
  The waiting time figures as at the end of September were as follows:

  Waiting times for interviews for settlement purposes

  weeks

  Post

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  India

  Bombay

  0

  4

  4

  4

  New Delhi

  0

  16

  21

  25

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  8

  40

  42

  50

  Bangladesh

  Dhaka

  17

  26

  11

  49

  Notes:

  Queue 1-4 System

  Queue 1—Right of Abode cases and Dependant Relatives over 65;

  Queue 2—Spouses and Children under 18;

  Queue 3—Fiance(e)s and other First Time Applicants; and

  Queue 4—Re-applicants.

  The visa sections at Calcutta, Madras and Karachi have a standard single queue for all settlement applications. Their current waiting times are:

  Calcutta: currently no queue

  Madras: 2 weeks

  Karachi: 8 weeks.

  European Union Programme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for November and (b) the major European Union events for the next six months. [96950]
  1040
  Mr. Vaz
  The information is as follows:

  Monthly forecast of EU Business: November 1999

  November 1999

  2 November—Dubai—EU-Gulf Co-operation Council (EU-GCC 9th Joint Council)
  Opening Statement by the President of the Meeting (United Arab Emirates) and reply by the EU Presidency

  Adoption by the Agenda

  Implementation of the Co-operation Agreement

  Free trade agreement negotiations

  Exchange of views on developments in the two regions:

  European Union; Gulf Co-operation Council

  Exchange of views on political questions of common interest

  Approval of the Joint Communique and agreed minutes

  Any other business

  3-4 November—Brussels—European Parliamentary Plenary

  Consultation Procedure
  (possible) Proposal for a Council Decision concluding the Agreement for scientific and technological co-operation between the European Community and the People's Republic of China
  (possible) Proposal for a Council Decision concluding the Agreement on co-operation for science and technology between the European Community and the government of the Russia Federation
  (possible) Proposal for a Council Decision concluding the Agreement for scientific and technological co-operation between the European Community and the Argentine Republic

  Codecision Procedure

  Second Reading
  (possible) Common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Directive concerning the enforcement of seafarers' hours of work on board ships using Community ports
  (possible) Common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Directive amending Directive 93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive
  (possible) Common position adopted by the Council with a view to adopting a European Parliament and Council Directive relating to the availability of consumer information on fuel economy in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars.

  8 November—Brussels—ECOFIN Council

  Adoption of the provisional agenda

  Approval of the list of "A" items

  The Tax Package

  (a) Taxation of Savings
  Key issues; reports on Dependent or Associated Territories

  (b) Code of Conduct on business taxation
  state of play

  (c) Interests and Royalties
  (possible) Energy Taxation
  Economic policy co-ordination
  Draft Council report to European Council
  EIB lending: Renewal of Community guarantee for projects in third countries
  (possible) HIPC-initiative
  The introduction of euro notes and coins Common statement
  Risk capital: Implementation of the Action Plan—Communication by the Commission
  (possible) Own Resources Decision

  1041
  The Employment package
  Revised Joint Employment Report
  Joint opinion of the EPC/ELC on the Employment Guidelines and Recommendations
  AOB (p.m.—Euro 11; Macroeconomic dialogue)

  8 November—Brussels—Consumer Affairs Council

  Adoption of the agenda
  (possible) Approval of the list of "A" items
  Amended proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and modifying Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC (Legal basis proposed by Commission: Articles 47[2], 55 and 95) (Item on which a vote may be called for)
  Common position
  13097/98 CONSOM 76 ECOFIN 239 CODEC 622
  10505/99 CONSOM 46 ECOFIN 136 CODEC 456
  Implementation and application of consumer protection legislation
  Information from the Commission on the implementation and application in the member states of certain Directives, in particular Directives on time-sharing and package holidays

  Consumer access to justice

  (a) Information from the Commission on the follow-up to its recommendation on the principles applicable to the mechanisms responsible for out-of-court settlements of consumer disputes

  (b) Information from the Presidency on the European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 as regards the item on citizen's access to justice

  Food Security

  (a) Information campaign on food security in the member states Progress report from the Commission

  (b) "European Food 2000" seminar (Helsinki, 23 and 24 September 1999) Presidency briefing on the outcome

  (c) Discussion (15.00-16.00: open debate)
  Consumer protection and services of general interest—Discussion 11682/99 CONSOM 49 MI 93
  Other business
  Transparency for the consumer in regard to civil liability for motor vehicles (automobile insurance)
  contribution by the Italian delegation

  November—Brussels—Industry Council

  Adoption of the agenda

  (possible) Approval of the list of "A" items

  Competitiveness and entrepreneurial policy of the European Union

  Debate and Council conclusions

  (a) Commission communication entitled "Structural change and adjustment in European manufacturing"
  11552/99 ECO 309
  11706/99 ECO 317

  (b) Competitiveness in the Information Society

  (c) Medium-term programme for the organisation of an ongoing debate on industrial competitiveness

  (d) SME

  SME forum: Rapid growth and competitiveness through technology

  Commission report on concerted action with the member states
  1042
  Integration of sustainable development into EU industrial policy
  Report to the Helsinki European Council
  State of the competitiveness of the EU forest-based and related industries
  Commission communication
  Council conclusions 11707/99 ECO 318

  Steel industry

  (a) State of the competitiveness of the steel industry in the EU
  Commission communication
  Commission presentation
  11708/99 SID 32 SOC 332 FIN 374 ECO 319

  (b) Commission report to the Council on the monitoring of aid for steel covered by Article 95 of the Treaty
  Information from the Commission
  Shipbuilding
  Commission report on the international shipbuilding situation
  Council conclusions 11919/99 RC 24

  (b) Fourth Commission report to the Council on the monitoring of aid to certain shipyards currently being restructured in Germany and Spain
  Commission presentation 11921/99 RC 26
  White Paper on the modernisation of the rules laid down by Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty—Commission briefing
  Other business—State aids
  Note from the Danish delegation
  11855/99 ECO 323 FIN 379 RC 23 EEE 99

  11 November—Brussels—Development Council

  No agenda yet available

  11 November—Brussels—Standing Committee on Employment

  Rules of procedure
  Confirmation of the Council's position
  Co-ordinated strategy for employment
  Commission Communication on Employment Guidelines for 2000
  Draft Joint Report on Employment for 1999
  Commission Recommendation for a Council Recommendation on the implementation of member states' employment policies
  The discussion will take account of the Community's economic and social objectives (i.e. the Broad Economic Guidelines).

  11–12 November—Helsinki—Ministerial Conference on the Northern Dimension

  No formal agenda

  12 November—Brussels—Accession Conference

  No formal agenda

  12 November—Brussels—Labour and Social Affairs Council

  Adoption of the provisional agenda

  (possible) Approval of the list of "A" items
  Employment
  Proposal for Guidelines for Member States' Employment Policies 2000
  doc. 10992/99/SOC 302 ECOFIN 159
  Draft Joint Employment Report 1999
  doc. 10993/99 SOC 303 ECOFIN 160 + COR1 (f)
  Commission Recommendation for Council Recommendations on the Implementation of Member States' Employment Policies doc. 10994/99 SOC 304 ECOFIN 161
  Any other business

  15–16 November—Brussels—Agriculture Council

  Adoption of the agenda

  Approval of the list of "A" items

  Strategy on environmental integration and sustainable development in the common agricultural policy (in preparation for the Helsinki European Council on 11 and 12 December 1999) 12082/99 AGRI 165 ENV 360

  1043
  Beef labelling

  (a) Report by the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on the situation regarding the implementation of beef-labelling systems in the different Member States (Art. 19(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97) 12031/99 AGRILEG 163

  (b) Proposals for Regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council

  establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97
  amending Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products 12030/99 AGRILEG 162 CODEC 583
  Progress report

  Proposal for a Council Regulation on measures to promote and provide information on agricultural products in third countries (Item on which a vote may be requested)

  (Legal basis: Art. 37 of the Treaty) 5386/99 AGRI 7 AGRIFIN 7

  (possible) Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 establishing a support system for producers of certain arable crops (non-food) (Item on which a vote may be requested)

  (Legal basis: Art. 36 and 37 of the Treaty) 11375/95 AGRIORG 249 AGRIFIN 220

  (possible) Cotton: Proposals for Council Regulations

  adjusting, for the sixth time, the system of aid for cotton introduced by Protocol 4 annexed to the Act of Accession of Greece

  relating to the production aid for cotton
  (possible) Commission information on the banana dossier
  Extension of State aid for small producers
  Austrian delegation's request for authorisation

  Items Within the Competence of the Permanent Representatives Committee
  Dioxin: Progress report
  (possible) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine
  Other business

  Use of hormones as growth promoters (request by the Danish delegation)

  Equal opportunities for men and women and rural development (request by the Swedish delegation)

  Organisation of future work

  15–16 November—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  Adoption of the provisional agenda

  Approval of the list of "A" items

  Horizontal Issues
  Resolutions, decisions and opinions adopted by the European Parliament at its part-sessions in Strasbourg on 417 and 25129 October 1999
  Electoral procedure
  European Security and Defence Policy: elements for the Presidency report on military and non-military aspects of crisis management
  Common Strategies

  1044
  External Relations

  Negotiations for a development partnership agreement with the ACP state
  preparation for the next Ministerial Conference

  Follow-up of the EU-Russia Summit

  Pakistan; Western Balkans; Indonesia

  Bananas

  WTO: Ministerial Conference in Seattle

  AOB

  Items Likely to Become "A" Points

  Adoption of the EU position for the 12th meeting of the EEA Council

  Adoption of the EU position for the Association Council with Tunisia (16 November 1999)

  Adoption of the EU position for the 5th Association Council with Bulgaria (16 November 1999)

  Adoption of the EU position for the second Co-operation Council with Moldova on 16 November 1999

  (possible) European armaments policy: adoption of the common position

  15–19 November—Strasbourg—European Parliament Plenary
  No agenda yet available

  16 November—Brussels—EEA Council
  No agenda yet available

  18 November—Brussels—Health Council
  No agenda yet available

  22 November—Brussels—Fisheries Council (possible)
  No agenda yet available

  23 November—Brussels—Culture/Audiovisual Council
  No agenda yet available

  23 November—Brussels—Youth Council
  No agenda yet available

  25–26 November—Brussels—Budget Council
  No agenda yet available

  26 November—Brussels—Education Council
  No agenda yet available

  29 November—Brussels—Labour and Social Affairs Council
  No agenda yet available

  29 November—Brussels—ECOFIN Council
  Preparation of the European Council in Helsinki

  Economic policy cooperation, report by the Council

  Employment

  Joint annual employment report of Council and Commission

  Employment Guidelines 2000
  Report on reinforced tax policy co-operation
  Effective fight against fraud
  Report by the Council

  Tax Package

  Code of Conduct (Business Taxation)

  Final report

  Taxation of Savings—Political agreement on Draft Directive

  Interest and Royalties—Political agreement on Draft Directive

  1045

  Implementation of Stability and Growth Pact

  Financial Services Policy Group

  Report by the Commission
  Amendment of the UCITS Directive
  Political agreement
  Annual Report of the Court of Auditors concerning financial year 1998
  EURO 11—Joint meeting with Labour and Social Affairs Council (Employment Guidelines 2000 and joint annual employment report)

  30 November—Brussels—Telecommunications Council
  No agenda yet available

  30 November-3 December—Seattle—WTO Ministerial Conference
  No formal agenda.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hill Farmers
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the deadline for responses to the consultation paper on payments to hill farmers under Agenda 2000. [97030]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I intend to issue the consultation paper on payments to hill farmers in England next week. We will be seeking responses by 3 December.

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with(a) the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and (b) the British Veterinary Association concerning the English language skills of foreign-trained veterinary surgeons seeking employment in this country. [88294]

  Ms Quin
  I can confirm that the Minister and appropriate officials have regular contact with representatives of both the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association.

  The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is obliged to register Veterinary Surgeons who have qualified from recognised establishments within the European Union. This is a reciprocal arrangement. Veterinary Surgeons who have qualified from non-European Union non-recognised establishments are required to pass a written examination (in English) before they can be registered with the college. Registration with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is a pre-requisite to practising veterinary surgery.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulatory powers he has over the level of fees charged by veterinary surgeons; and if he will make a statement. [89967]

  Ms Quin
  We have no regulatory powers over the level of fees charged by veterinary surgeons in private veterinary practice. There is a free market in the provision of private veterinary services and animal owners may choose the veterinary practice which treats their animals.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost in 1997 of 1046
  compensating farmers for (a) cattle compulsorily slaughtered after testing positive in the tuberculin skin test and (b) cattle which were found not to be infected on post-mortem and culture examination. [93738]

  Ms Quin
  A total of £2.38 million was paid out in 1997 in compensation for 3,298 reactors and 462 contact animals, of which £1.02 million was for reactors subsequently found in post mortem and culture examinations not to have been infected with TB.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research the Government is conducting on the pathogenesis and epidemiology of bovine tuberculosis in cattle. [93739]

  Ms Quin
  A wide range of research activity is in progress in this area, as set out in the reply given to the hon. Member on 20 July 1999,Official Report, column 495. In addition, the Independent Scientific Group has recently made recommendations on further research needs relating to the pathogenesis of M. bovis and MAFF will shortly be inviting applications for research proposals.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in the development of a tuberculosis vaccine for cattle. [94922]

  Ms Quin
  The Government are funding expenditure of about £1.4 million a year on vaccine development. The main thrust of the programme in its first five-year phase is to identify vaccine candidates. The work is being carried out by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the Institute of Animal Health, drawing on work carried out internationally and in related fields, such as human vaccines, as appropriate. Emerging findings will be published as and when appropriate.

  Milk Imports (Stansted)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much milk was imported through Stansted airport from Holland in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [93733]

  Ms Quin
  No figures are available for imports of milk through individual airports.

  Discarding
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the publication date for the research study commissioned from Nautilus Consultants in June on economic aspects of discarding. [95404]

  Ms Quin
  The research study is jointly funded by MAFF, the Commission and the Dutch and French Governments and involves consultants from UK, France and Netherlands. Nautilus Consultants is the UK Contractor. The project commenced in June and is expected to take about 18 months to complete. It is intended that the results will be published but it is too early to give a precise date for publication.

  Cattle Passports
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the cost of cattle passports is calculated; and what is the cost of similar arrangements in each EU member state. [94289]
  1047
  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 20 September 1999 that the Government would not now be proceeding with their proposals to charge for cattle passports. In the current depressed state of the market this would be an additional burden on farmers. The Government will continue to meet the running costs of the Cattle Tracing System and will not impose charges before 2002–03 at the earliest.

  Regarding charges in other member states, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on 22 July 1999, Official Report, column 660.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from(a) retailers and (b) consumer representatives on the thresholds of genetically modified material in food currently subject to consultation by the European Commission; what advice his Department has given to the Commission; and if he will make a statement. [94872]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 October 1999]: MAFF received a number of responses from retailers and consumer representatives in response to the recent EC Commission proposal on thresholds for GM material in food. The vast majority of these supported the threshold of 1 per cent. contained in the proposal as being a practical upper limit taking into account the current situation with regard to analytical methods and supply chain. It was recognised that this threshold would apply to food ingredients so that the level in the final food would be much lower.

  The proposal was agreed in Brussels on 21 October with only minor changes.

  In agreeing to the 1 per cent. figure we made clear that actual levels of GM material in non GM soya and maize ingredients should be kept as low as possible and that the threshold itself should be reviewed within two years. The Commission will be drafting a statement to accompany the Regulation to cover this point.

  We shall be continuing to press strongly for clear EC rules to be agreed on GM free labelling and the labelling of animal foods containing GM material as quickly as possible.

  Animal and Food Exports
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to make bilateral agreements with(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Estonia, (e) Slovenia and (f) Slovakia to minimise regulation and to expedite veterinary inspection relating to the export of UK animal and food products; and if he will make a statement; [94609]

  (2) if the EU Commission is seeking to reach agreement with applicant countries for EU membership, in advance of their accession, to minimise regulation and to expedite veterinary inspection relating to the export of EU animal and food products; and if he will make a statement. [94610]

  Ms Quin
  There are already agreements between the European Union and the applicant countries. One of the objectives of these agreements is a free trade area to 1048
  establish progressively between the European Union and each of the applicant countries. In addition, Accession Partnerships offer applicant countries EU assistance in meeting priorities for adoption of the Community acquis, including trade rules which underpin the operation of the Single Market.

  In the case of the Czech Republic there is a specific Protocol to the Europe Agreement concerning sanitary, phytosanitary and animal welfare measures in relation to trade. Under the terms of the Protocol, there are reduced frequencies for physical checks on certain products traded between the parties. The European Commission has discussed the possibility of similar protocols for trade with Slovakia, Hungary and Poland but these have not yet been concluded.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 1 September on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Doyle; [96287]

  (2) when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 2 September on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Newman; [96289]

  (3) when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 7 September on behalf of his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith. [96288]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I wrote to the right hon. Member on 28 October 1999 in response to the letters to which he refers.

  Portugal (BSE)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department is to provide assistance to the Portuguese Government for the incineration of carcases to combat BSE; and if any such carcases will be imported for destruction in the United Kingdom. [95298]

  Ms Quin
  Should the Portuguese Government ask for technical assistance on incineration of carcases, or on any other matter, we would endeavour to provide it. But we have not been asked to take any bovine carcases from Portugal for destruction and we have no plans to offer this facility.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [94007]
  1049
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 25 October 1999, Official Report, column 739.

  CAP
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the Coopers and Lybrand review of Common Agricultural Policy administration. [95454]

  Ms Quin
  A copy of the Coopers and Lybrand review of Common Agricultural Policy administration has been placed in the Library of the House. The review was completed in April 1998, and the Department is now developing an integrated IT system for administering CAP schemes, including a geographical information system (GIS) for the Integrated Administration and Control System.

  As part of the Ministry's programme for Modernising Government, and to meet its commitment to review at least 60 per cent. of services by March 2003, the Ministry has now embarked on a wide-ranging review of how aid schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy are administered in England, taking account of the opportunities for improving service delivery which the new IT system will offer. PricewaterhouseCoopers have been commissioned to help with this review. The review is currently under way and PricewaterhouseCoopers are due to report their findings before the end of the year.

  Poultry Imports
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the(a) veterinary drug policies and (b) farming practices used in countries from which the UK imports poultry; and if he will make a statement. [95713]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: Imports of fresh poultry meat must originate only from third countries on a list drawn up by the European Commission. In drawing up the list the Commission must take account of the state in that country of:

  the health of poultry, other domestic animals and wildlife;

  the supply of information relating to the existence of contagious animal diseases;

  rules and organisation on, and implementation of, disease prevention and control;

  the structure and powers of the veterinary service;

  legislation on the use of banned substances;

  the guarantees the country can give with regard to compliance with EU import rules.

  In addition, any third country wishing to export fresh meat to the European Union must submit veterinary drug residue testing plans to the Commission. These describe the residue testing programme to be undertaken in respect of their food production and must provide guarantees, which are at least equivalent to the requirements of the Community on EC producers. Commission inspectors verify compliance with residue testing plans when they carry out periodic checks on third country slaughterhouses authorised to produce meat for export to the Community.

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

Business of the House
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Motion is similar to Motions which were moved last July. The purpose of the Motion is to ensure that if there is a positive outcome arising from Senator Mitchell's review of the implementation of the Good Friday agreement, which is due to end on Sunday, the resulting secondary legislation can be laid before the House and taken without delay. If an instrument is laid on or later than Tuesday next week, there will not be time for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to report on it.
The second limb of the Motion I am moving—to suspend Standing Order 72—allows a Motion to approve any secondary legislation laid before the House next week to be taken, notwithstanding that the Joint Committee has not had an opportunity to report on it to the House. This power would be used only in relation to a Northern Ireland order resulting from the Mitchell review. The first part of the Motion allows an order laid next week to be debated on the same day that it is laid. The Motion is purely an enabling Motion and will have no effect if no such order is laid. This Motion has the full consent of the usual channels.
Moved, That, in the event that one or more statutory instruments relating to Northern Ireland are laid before the House before the end of the Session, a Motion or Motions to approve them may, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be moved forthwith; and that Standing Order 72 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable the Motion or Motions to be taken, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instruments has been laid before the House.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, in view of the numerous reports that some kind of deal has been reached, can the Government Chief Whip assure the House that any document originating from the Northern Ireland Office will be examined very carefully in order that the House is not humiliated as it was on the earlier date in July to which the noble Lord has referred?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Motion is purely procedural to allow a debate to take place if necessary. We need it to change the Standing Order to enable us to take it on the same day.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nuclear Waste: Science and Technology Committee Report
11.6 a.m.
Lord Tombs Lord Tombs rose to move, That this House take note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Management of Nuclear Waste (3rd Report, HL Paper 41).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first declare some interests, past and present. I am an honorary Member of the British Nuclear Energy Society, and from 1978 to 1990 I held a series of posts in the electricity supply industry in which I had a close involvement in the policy and practice of nuclear power. I am also a director of UK CEED, of which more later.
The bulk of the nuclear waste existing today, and that which is certain to arise in the future, arises from past military and civil programmes. The problem exists and it has to be solved. It cannot be avoided by deciding today to discontinue nuclear power or to stop the reprocessing of spent fuel.
The time-scales which characterise the life and behaviour of nuclear waste are quite unique, requiring the safe isolation of the waste from the environment for hundreds of thousands of years. The difficulties of arriving at technical solutions, and of securing public confidence in those solutions, occupied much of the time of our Committee.
The inquiry, which lasted for 16 months, was occasioned by the rejection of the Nirex application for planning consent for the construction of a rock characterisation facility at Longlands Farm near Sellafield to determine whether the site would be suitable for the construction of a deep disposal facility for intermediate level nuclear waste. The declared government policy for disposal at that time envisaged the construction of deep geological facilities. The refusal of planning permission threw that policy into some confusion.
The chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology at that time was the late Lord Phillips of Ellesmere, whose breadth of knowledge and analytical mind are greatly missed by his colleagues. He considered the topic to be of such importance that he decided to chair the sub-committee himself. Unfortunately, his health problems worsened rapidly and he had to relinquish the chair after the first few meetings. He asked me to succeed him as chairman, a task which I undertook with great sorrow and a recognition of the difficulty of following him adequately. He remained interested in the inquiry even when he was too ill to attend meetings, and he made many useful suggestions in the course of our conversations.
The inquiry was complex and interesting. I should like to take this opportunity to thank my committee colleagues for their patient support and help: our Clerk, Dr Don Rolt, for his devoted and skilful approach to the organisation of our work; our special adviser, Ms Marion Hill of W.S. Atkins, whose experience and expertise proved invaluable in exploring and evaluating the many issues which arose in the course of the inquiry; and our special assistant, Tim Bradshaw, whose diligent research clarified many complex issues. I should also like to thank the many organisations and individuals who provided written and oral evidence to the Committee and who gave generously of their time and experience in doing so. Our overseas visits to the United States of America, Canada, Sweden and France added greatly to the perspective of our study. Our thanks are due to the organisations we met in those countries and to the staff of our High Commission and embassies for their help.
Although the immediate cause for the inquiry was the rejection of the Nirex application to build a rock characterisation facility—in effect, a large underground laboratory—with a view to establishing the suitability or otherwise of that site, it rapidly became clear that many other issues vital to a satisfactory solution remained open.
We examined the question of geological disposal in stable rock formations at depths of 300 metres or more; we looked at the Nirex proposals for Longlands Farm at some length; and we sought the views and experience of organisations in other countries. We were greatly impressed by the volume and quality of the research and development work in this field, which has progressed steadily around the world; and we accepted the overwhelming view of experts here and abroad that understanding of the issues made geological disposal a practical and desirable solution.
But we departed from the early Nirex view, which had characterised much of the work being done abroad, that the waste could be sealed in a repository and left in complete confidence. We concluded that provision for monitoring and, if necessary, retrieval could and should be made for a considerable period of time, and that sealing of the repository should take place only when a sufficient level of confidence had resulted from continuing research and experience. We call that "phased disposal" and recommend its adoption. The recommendation seems to be gaining support in other countries.
Organisations opposed to geological disposal, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, proposed instead indefinite surface or near-surface storage while research work continued on alternative solutions. They were not able to suggest useful lines of research which might meet that goal. We concluded that their opposition to geological disposal was not well-founded and that the proposal for indefinite surface or near-surface storage would place unreasonable demands for supervision and control on future generations and, indeed, on the stability of society itself over the very long time-scales that we had to consider.
Any future provision for the management of nuclear waste will require public acceptance. We examined ways in which that problem is being approached in other countries and suggest ways in which it might be achieved in the United Kingdom. We recommend wide public consultation before the policy is settled by government and endorsed by Parliament, and recommend regular reports to Parliament and subsequent endorsement by that body in order to preserve the necessary level of public support. We also looked at economic incentives to secure the willingness of local communities to accept disposal facilities, and we make some suggestions that might suit the UK.
A number of novel methods of public consultation have emerged around the world in recent years, and a Consensus Conference on Radioactive Waste Management was sponsored by Nirex, the NERC and the OST which was held in London in May this year, following the publication of our report. The report of the conference has been published by the organisers, UK CEED, of which body I am a board member, although I played no part in the conference or its preparation. The conclusions of the lay panel were carefully argued and thorough and offer a useful way forward in the necessary task of involving the public in a carefully considered examination of the complex problems involved.
Beyond the immediate question of geological disposal lie other matters which would greatly affect any future management strategy. There are wastes for which no long-term policy has yet been adopted, and there are a number of materials for which no use can be foreseen but which are not currently classified as waste. As a result, future storage and disposal needs are not well defined and some hazardous materials continue to be stored by essentially temporary methods. Until those matters are addressed, we shall not know the size of the disposal facilities required and we shall not know whether one site will be sufficient.
Further complication arises in the MoD nuclear programme, in which obsolete submarines are kept afloat pending a decision on disposal. That "wait and see" attitude applies also to spent submarine fuel which is in store at Sellafield. That policy carries the risk that the MoD may one day request space in a repository for which no provision has been made. The long-term management of both submarines and fuel should be brought into a national strategy, and we so recommend.
The present fragmentation of waste management policy that I have described is unacceptable, and we recommend the creation of an independent nuclear waste management commission charged with the development and oversight of a coherent and comprehensive strategy. We suggest that that body could well organise the national consultation exercise and would eventually become a statutory body with responsibility for establishing repository requirements and standards and overseeing the work of a "radioactive waste disposal company" charged with the exploration, development and operation of disposal facilities and the necessary enabling research.
Nuclear waste is generally divided into low, intermediate and high levels, representing the activity level of the wastes. The Nirex proposals, in accordance with government policy at the time, proposed the geological disposal of intermediate-level waste. Our proposal is that both intermediate and high-level wastes should be placed in a deep geological facility.
Turning to low-level waste, there is at present only one facility for its disposal; that is at shallow depth and is at Drigg, near Sellafield. The site is owned by BNFL. We understand de it has a limited capacity for some types of low-level waste (for example, contaminated soils and building rubble) and that its capacity will be exhausted by about the middle of the next century. A new site will be needed well before then.
It is important to recognise that nuclear wastes are stored carefully at present, and I should like to take this opportunity to praise the professionalism of the organisations involved, including BNFL, British Energy, Nirex, the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency and RWMAC. But effective management on a short time-scale does not satisfy the need for a safe, robust long-term solution for long-lived wastes, including those that will be produced by dismantling obsolete facilities. Their effective isolation from the environment in a reliable way, one that does not depend on the expertise of the current management of the industry, is an essential requirement for dealing with the present inheritance and an essential prerequisite for any extension of nuclear power.
We did not examine the merits or objections to the extension of civil nuclear power, but we might note here that its important contribution to our present-day economy, and to our international obligations to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide is falling as the early Magnox and AGR stations reach the end of their lives and no provision is made for their replacement. I believe that even to retain the option of further nuclear power for the future will require a clear and effective strategy for dealing with the waste products of the process.
I turn now to the vexed question of plutonium, about which much has been said and written. Some seek to demonise the material, incorrectly claiming it to be the most hazardous substance known to man. Others seek to defend it as a store of energy which may be of great value to society. The fact is that it is a hazardous material with a very long half-life and it is fissionable, making it attractive to terrorists.
Currently, we have a large stock of plutonium for much of which no use can be foreseen. That stock, now about 60 tonnes, is expected to rise to about 100 tonnes by the year 2010, largely as a result of necessary reprocessing. We recommend that the surplus stocks should be declared as waste and disposed of accordingly. We have examined the contribution which fast reactors and the use of mixed-oxide fuel could make to the problem and suggest the retention of a strategic stock. To put this in context, a fast reactor core would probably require about 4 tonnes of plutonium. Therefore, a strategic stock might be of the order of 10 tonnes.
We received representations that reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel should be stopped. We rejected those arguments, partly because of technical considerations which require the reprocessing of Magnox fuel and partly because of a study by RWMAC which demonstrated that, within the limits of the uncertainties involved, reprocessing is environmentally neutral. We discussed with BNFL the possibility of reprocessing for waste management purposes rather than to produce plutonium, and that may merit further examination.
The management of nuclear waste is a subject complicated by technical considerations and by public perceptions and fears. It is a problem shared by other countries but the way in which it impacts upon them, and consequently the solutions available to them, differs substantially given the history of the nuclear industry in those countries. Some began with weapons programmes and had early reprocessing of spent fuel; some continued to reprocess with the idea of recycling plutonium in fast reactors; and some never reprocessed their spent fuel and treated it as waste.
Despite those important differences, there are also many important similarities of risk assessment, safety standards and research requirements which make international collaboration desirable and fruitful. The organisations involved in this work perform a valuable role in collating and disseminating information and in promoting best practice. Great Britain is a valued and active member of these associations.
Occasionally, the idea of extended international collaboration leads to the suggestion of international disposal facilities for nuclear waste. This is an attractively simple idea but one which does not for long survive the realities of the problem. The nature and dimensions of the problem vary between countries depending upon their history. The need to win public support is difficult enough for any country when contemplating its own problems without the questions of transport, of acceptable safeguards and safety and of societal stability. That leads me to conclude that if there is to be an international approach to the provision of waste disposal perhaps it will be in the distant future when the many problems of public acceptability and technical organisation have been satisfactorily solved.
The Government's response was published last Monday, more than seven months after our report appeared. I welcome their careful and thorough examination of the issues and acceptance of the main thrust of our report. I have some comments on parts of the response which, given the length of time that I have spoken, I shall save for my closing remarks. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Management of Nuclear Waste (3rd Report, HL Paper 41).—(Lord Tombs.)
11.23 a.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I echo the comments just made about the late Lord Phillips of Ellesmere whose initiative in setting up this inquiry was so important. As his successor in chairing the Select Committee I miss his guidance, kindness and huge insight into matters scientific. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for taking over chairmanship of the subcommittee and doing such a splendid job over the course of a year. This was a lengthy and complex deliberation and an unusual amount of inquiry went into producing the excellent report. I believe that that shows the extraordinary strengths of the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology.
Perhaps I offend slightly against the conventions of the House if I say that it is not very often that I have the opportunity to speak before my boss. It is wonderful to see the House so full on a Friday morning. I am sure that one of the reasons is that we all want to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. It gives us great pleasure that he has devoted time to become active in, and to augment, the scientific work of the Select Committee. We shall listen to his maiden speech with great interest. I hope that that does not further increase his blood pressure. I always find it difficult to speak in this Chamber.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is to speak. Sadly, this may be one of the last occasions on which we shall hear from him, for reasons outside our control. We are grateful to him for the work he has done on the Select Committee.
Whether we like it or not, there is no question that we have to live with nuclear matters. Even if we remove the biggest source of nuclear waste—the power industry and weapons—we shall still require many products of nuclear engineering and items that cause radiation. It is interesting to consider the origins of the public mistrust of nuclear matters which are relevant to the debate. Public mistrust was perhaps initiated by the notion that nuclear weapons were a potent source of human destruction. Very pertinent to that was the measure of secrecy and deception practised in the early development of nuclear weapons. It has been pointed out that not even the Cabinet was fully notified at the time that a British nuclear bomb was being developed.
Further, a number of serious incidents have affected the public perception of the nuclear industry: Windscale in 1957; the meltdown at Three Mile Island; Chernobyl, which scattered radiation over a wide area; and the more recent episode at Tokaimura in Japan. However, if one adds up all of those events, the alarm that they have caused is completely disproportionate to their measurable harm. For example, they probably pale into insignificance compared with risks such as road accidents. In this country the commonest cause of death among those under 47 is not an accident on the railway but a road traffic accident on the MI or something similar.
The problem with nuclear engineering, power and waste is that the risk is seen as being imposed rather than a matter of individual choice. The nuclear industry has not been viewed by the public as being lily
486
white. There have been examples of unsatisfactory record-keeping and, in some cases, monitoring. There have also been undocumented releases into the environment, notably at Dounreay. That was pointed out in 1995 by the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee.
As to risk, the irony is that the amount of exposure to radiation in domestic circumstances, for example, from radon in Devon and Cornwall, is well above the level that would be acceptable in the industry and, as far as is known, is never reached except on those rare occasions when there is a release. People do not refuse to live in Devon and Cornwall, and there has never been the slightest panic about radon exposure. There has been chronic comment, mostly in the press, but it has never achieved much public perception; nor should it, possibly.
It is worth pointing out that it has been calculated on good evidence that of the 50,000 exposed survivors of the nuclear explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, horrendous though they were, 400 died from cancer between 1950 and 1990. That is less than 10 per cent of the survivors of the two nuclear bombs.
We must address the issue of risk and we must recognise that the nuclear industry is capable of good and harm. When examining other sources of power, such as fossil fuel, it is almost unarguable that they are much more dangerous and have caused more deaths.
The real trick relates to the public's perception of these issues. I do not want to pre-empt what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will deal with in his next report for the Select Committee, but it is relevant to point out that there is a real need for public understanding and for the Government to accept public concerns.
Above all, we must be able to forecast issues of scientific importance. Frankly, we have done a bad job in that regard. We did an extraordinarily bad job over BSE. We did not recognise that it would be coming, but we certainly knew that CJD might be a problem. The classic, most recent, example is genetic modification. I do not believe that that story has yet ended. It relates only to foods, but it might extend. I believe that we could have had more foresight and seen the problem coming.
Therefore, procrastination is not a good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, referred to a wait-and-see policy. However, I am concerned about the Government's response. It is an extraordinarily detailed report which needs urgent action, but the Government have not taken it on board. We in this country have procrastinated over the disposal of nuclear waste for a long time and the report appears to advocate further procrastination. It is worth looking at its final sentence:
"The Government firmly believes that it will be important not to rush this process but to take the time required to make sure each step forward commands the widest possible public support".
It sounds good, but we have not done much about pubic support and we must. That is a debate that the Government might stimulate in the near future.

487
Finally, a recent BMJ leader on radiation and medicine contained a good comment:
"In most human endeavour there is room for improvement.".
In this case, one cannot help feeling that the industry could undertake better monitoring. There is a need for greater communication with epidemiologists and statisticians so that we can understand the risks in relation to the industry. There is a need for more dialogue with psychologists and sociologists about why the public are sometimes unnecessarily alarmed and how we might obviate that. We need to ensure that journalists do not exaggerate. What we must not do is procrastinate and leave it to the pressure groups. In doing so, we risk creating a serious problem in respect of something that is important to our welfare and economy. It is only reasonable to say that the Government could do more. I hope that they will consider implementing some of the Select Committee's suggestions more rapidly than appears to be the case.
11.34 a.m.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his kind remarks. Although I assure your Lordships that there was no collusion, there could not have been a better introduction to what I have to say. I know that maiden speeches should be uncontroversial and I may be unwise to make my first contribution on nuclear waste. But perhaps I, too, should begin by declaring not so much a personal interest as past involvement. I served for a time as the Secretary of State's nominated representative director on the Nirex board. Within the MoD, I had nuclear responsibilities and several years ago I chaired a government inquiry into the safety of UK nuclear weapons. Most recently, I helped to plan the Consensus Conference on UK nuclear wastes.
The report which the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, introduced today is a most valuable contribution to the debate. As he says, whatever our future policy on nuclear power, we must resolve the problem of the waste. Wastes remain toxic for a long time and somehow they must be made safe. But safety must be quantified. Present regulations state that the risk of a person dying as a result of releases from a repository should be less than one in a million.
In order to meet a requirement of this kind, one has to understand, first, how human health is affected by radiation, and thus what release from a repository can be tolerated; and then how to keep releases below that level by using geology and engineering. As the report shows, matters relating to geology and engineering have been pretty well aired. The physiological response to radiation has, however, received less attention and it is that which wish to address.
The health risk from radiation is calculated according to a time-honoured formula—really a recipe—that incorporates two important assumptions. The first is that the physical effects of radiation accumulate throughout our lives with, by implication, progressively more damaging consequences. This is known as the "dose accumulation assumption". Secondly, it is assumed that for any dose of radiation,
488
the health damage is exactly proportional to the dose; twice the dose gives twice the damage and so on. This is known as "linear dose response".
Taken together, the two assumptions have some interesting implications. They imply, for example, that a succession of exposures at low level can be equivalent to a single exposure at a higher level. This is like saying that drinking two glasses of wine every day for a week is the same as drinking 14 glasses in one go; or, more relevantly, 30 minutes sunbathing every day for a week has the same effect as one exposure of three and a half hours. We know all to painfully that that is not true!
Throughout our lives, we are continuously exposed to radiation from sources that we cannot control, mostly from the earth's radioactivity. People on aeroplanes and mountains may be closer to God, but that means that they are less shielded by the atmosphere and receive an extra dose of radiation from space.
In fact, life-time total exposure can be quite large but generally does not seem to bother people. We know, however, that if someone received the same lifetime dose in a fraction of a second, as perhaps in a nuclear accident, they would at best be very ill indeed. This suggests that the human body's response to radiation is decidedly non-linear and that slow exposure to radiation over the years is very different from a single massive pulse, even though the total amounts of radiation are the same. That is probably the case because body cells have mechanisms that continuously repair damage to their genetic material. Provided that the repair processes can keep pace with the damage, there is little or no long-term harm to healthy people. Faced with a single massive dose, the repair mechanisms do not have a chance.
There is growing recognition that the assumptions in the current formula are probably wrong. It is likely that life has evolved in such a way that most individuals can tolerate a certain level of radiation—the threshold level—without permanent damage.
The idea of safe thresholds for contaminants in the environment is well established. It is not clear why they were not adopted for radiation in 1959 when the present conventions were proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. It was probably because it was urgent at that time to agree a simple and precautionary means of estimating the effects of radiation exposure. What was adopted at the time as a quick, administrative solution has achieved a permanence and authority that was almost certainly never intended. That is now recognised by a number of authorities, including the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation which, earlier this year, decided to revisit the basic concepts underlying the current approach.
What has radiation response to do with today's debate? If current assumptions on which all planning is done are invalid—or substantially so—health and safety requirements for waste repositories, above or below ground, can be met with engineering and geological specifications significantly less demanding and less costly than at present.

489
To digress briefly, it may also mean that we are imposing heavy and unwarranted costs on all users of radiation such as hospital imaging units, university laboratories or even nuclear power plants. But worst of all, after the Chernobyl disaster, around 15 million people were moved from their farms and turned into refugees who are still in a desperate plight. Those people were moved because current radiological assumptions suggested that they were in danger. If they are wrong, they led the authorities to turn what started as a very serious nuclear accident into today's massive human catastrophe.
Science and experience have come a long way since 1959. It would be opportune now to review the working assumptions on how our bodies respond to radiation. Others are doing so and it could save substantial public expenditure, not to mention unwarranted personal anxieties and grief.
I very much hope that the Minister will give this matter some consideration and, in so far as a number of departments are involved, perhaps consult the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser.
11.43 a.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, rarely can the House have heard a speech of such absorbing and fascinating interest and opening up an entirely new line of inquiry, of which the Select Committee might like to have been able to take advantage. I regard it as a great pity that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, did not serve with us on the Select Committee. I hope that it will not be impertinent of me, as a mere layman, to offer him my warm congratulations on an outstanding maiden speech. It must be rare for a maiden speech to be delivered in this House which one would wish to see published in its entirety in the tabloid newspapers.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, comes to the House with a long and distinguished career behind him. He is a geologist, He was a distinguished academic; for 13 years being Professor of Mineralogy and Petrology at the University of Cambridge. As a public servant he was the Chief Scientific Adviser at the Ministry of Defence for five years. He is now a university leader—the rector of the Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine since 1993. He could not have delivered a speech that demonstrated more clearly the advantages of including medicine in a general university establishment. He has numerous academic distinctions. He has served on many important committees, including the Dearing Committee on Higher Education. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that the noble Lord has been co-opted on to the Select Committee on Science and Technology and has joined the Science and Society inquiry to which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, has spoken today with authority and humility. I am sure that I am not alone in looking forward to hearing more from him in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, referred to the late Lord Phillips of Ellesmere. I should like to be associated with his generous words. Perhaps I may
490
add, as the first member of the committee to have spoken, how much we owe to the noble Lord's expert and extremely patient chairmanship. We were a difficult lot, but we produced in the end a unanimous report which I believe will be one of the major milestones in the history of the difficult matter of nuclear waste.
I believe that I was the only former Minister with responsibilities in this area to serve on the committee. I was Secretary of State for the Environment from 1983 to 1985. So, addressing the Front Bench opposite, I can say that I have some understanding of the problems facing Ministers in dealing with this problem.
I should like to refer to the Government's response—if that is the appropriate word. Our report is dated 10th March 1999. On 16th April, the department wrote to the Committee Office which had asked when we could expect the Government's response. In its letter the department referred to two purdah periods: that between the local government and devolution elections in April and May, and the period following the elections to the European Parliament; that is between 20th May and 10th June. The letter then said:
"Ministers are currently aiming to publish the response between the end of the first purdah and the beginning of the second".
That is to say, we could have expected the response before the 20th May. Then on 24th May, there was the consensus conference to which the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, has already referred. At the conference the Minister made a good and responsive speech, but said this:
"Can I just say that the Government's position is that we will be responding to the House of Lords' Report very shortly about the need for public acceptance at a local level".
That was 24th May. The Minister continued:
"We will then be issuing a Green Paper, by the end of the year I hope, precisely to encourage this citizen involvement".
We have had to wait until this week to receive the response that is before us: six months—three times the normal expected period.
Earlier this week I received a letter from the Minister, Mr Meacher. It begins:
"The Government has today published its response to the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology".
He kindly enclosed a copy. Anyone who has read this response could be forgiven for thinking it is a non-response. It does not say anything of any significance. It is a "peace and motherhood" document. Yes, there must be public acceptability; yes, there must be a long period of consultation; yes, we shall issue a Green Paper early next year. But beyond that, there is virtually nothing. Today's debate has to be a debate on our report. It cannot be a debate about the Government's response.
For that reason, my first question to the Minister is this. The report and the Government's response to it talk about the need for openness and transparency. Indeed, those words occur frequently in our report. Why has it taken so much longer than was indicated by Ministers in the spring to produce such a thin and

491
uninformative document? Perhaps we should start today with a little openness and transparency in the shape of an honest recognition by Ministers that they have faced difficulties in producing even this document, and then an account to the House of what those difficulties were.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, indicated in his speech, the report raises a great many issues and I wish to comment upon only three. The first is public acceptability, to which all speakers so far in the debate have referred. For me the inquiry has been something of an eye-opener. I readily admit that for too long I have accepted unquestioningly that if the science clearly points to a solution, and if the overwhelming body of scientific opinion accepts that that solution is the best one, it only remains to inform the public of that fact in order to be able to proceed.
One of our most fascinating witnesses was Mr Eric Faulds of Shell UK Exploration and Production. He described this process as "DAD": decide, announce, defend. We all know what happened to Shell when they followed that process in relation to Brent Spar. Mr Faulds then described, during an illuminating session of evidence, the lessons Shell learned from that episode. It is not enough to tell the public, however much consultation with stakeholders may have taken place and however much agreement may have been reached about a particular solution and however scientifically correct the solution may have been thought to be. In spite of all that, it will not have public acceptability if the public has had no say.
I realise now that it was that that lay behind what I now recognise as my failure, as the then Secretary of State, to make any progress on this 15 years ago. Yes, we had Nirex; we had RWMAC, the advisory committee; and, yes, we tried to engage in local public consultation. There may be some who will remember the furore over the suggestion that the ICI potash mine in Billingham would be a suitable store. Yes, I made regular Statements in another place. But we made no attempt to engage in a more general public consultation on the options open to us. If I may say so, the result was not just "DAD", but "DADA", with "abandoned" at the end: decide, announce, defend, abandon.
The lesson goes far wider than nuclear waste, which is why the Select Committee decided to set up the inquiry "Science and Society" to which the noble Lord referred. I must not pre-empt any recommendations which may emerge from that. However, I can say that my colleagues and I are much impressed by the evidence that the process of engaging the public on matters scientific must be a two-way process. The public has perceptions and, even more importantly, has values which, if not taken into account, will guarantee failure. That was also pointed out in the 15th report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. We have learnt that this proposition is now widely accepted, and the issue turns on how it is to be done. On that, the Government's response has been total silence. We shall have to wait for the Green Paper.
492
I returned recently with some colleagues from the United States with a great deal of food for thought about openness, regulatory bodies meeting in public, holding public hearings, the use of the Internet and much, much more. I hope that the Government will be able to take such actions into account.
My second point can be expressed much more briefly. However much public consultation is held, in the end decisions are decisions for the Government and they must have the approval of Parliament. That is why in paragraph 6.53 of the report we recommend that:
"The policy should have explicit endorsement by Parliament, as well as a large measure of public acceptance".
We go on to add in the following paragraph 6.54:
"It is essential that the policy is endorsed by Parliament at regular intervals during its implementation".
Parliament is the place where the nation should express its approval. Public acceptance is a necessary precursor to that, but it is Parliament that gives the Government the authority to proceed.
In my final point I shall return once more to the question of how it is to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, referred to the Consensus Conference held last May. Like the noble Lord, I should declare an interest as a board member of UK CEED. This is only the second such consensus conference to be held in this country. The House will be intrigued to know that the first was held on the subject of plant biotechnology. It was almost entirely ignored by all those concerned—scientists as well as the authorities. The result, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was that earlier this year GMOs blew up in our face. Here again we must learn the lessons.
There are two lessons here, and they are both reassuring. Given an initial briefing on the facts and arguments, and given the opportunity to formulate the issues, to decide which witnesses to hear and to cross-examine them openly, 15 ordinary members of the public chosen entirely at random can make sophisticated cost-benefit analyses and will reach conclusions that will be widely regarded as full of common sense. That was what happened last May at the Consensus Conference on Nuclear Waste. Trust the public, or, as Churchill said, trust the people.
The second lesson is this. Two or three years ago when we were contemplating this matter, as a UK CEED board member I was deeply anxious that, on the sensitive nuclear issue, the process would be hijacked by the ultras and descend into confusion. However, I need not have worried. The process has in fact precisely the opposite effect. The panel of lay people quickly recognised that bodies like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth have their own agendas, and are more concerned with publicity for their own causes than with helping to find a solution to the problem under study. On the final day of that panel's report in public, many witnessed the members shaking their heads sadly as, with his back to them, Charles Secrett, director of Friends of the Earth, delivered his comments on the findings. They realised, as I recognised, that the kind of openness and transparency inherent in the Consensus

493
Conference process is what puts the single issue groups in their proper place. Yes, voices to be heard, but only one of many.
A similar moment of truth came for me during the course of our inquiry. My noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle examined the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and Dr Helen Wallace of Greenpeace on their attitudes to shareholder consultation. I shall quote the exchange, in the hope that I am not pre-empting my noble friend. Question 4.70 of the oral evidence stated:
"If society were to decide, by whatever process, that disposal is the best option, then would Greenpeace be prepared to contribute to the debate on taking this concept forward, and select the location for a site in the United Kingdom? If so, what features would you like to see in any future site exercise?"
That was the question from my noble friend. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, answered that as follows:
"The short answer to that, my Lady, is no".
Honestly, one does not really need to say more than that. I hope that Ministers will take account of that. Mr Meacher has a good deal to do to convince the scientific community that he recognises the place of those groups in the scheme of things and that he will not give a wholly disproportionate weight to the single issue fanatics.
I am to be followed in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers. The committee's report, like the Flowers report of 20 years ago, must be seen as a major milestone on the way to finding a solution. I hope that its recommendations will be closely followed over the years ahead. I only wish that when I was Secretary of State I had had the kind of guidance, particularly in the public acceptability chapter, available to my successors. We tried to find a solution—I went back and revisited the files on the issue—but, like everyone else at the time, we were locked into the "DAD" mindset: decide, announce, defend. That was why we failed. This Government will have no excuse for failing again.
Noon
Lord Flowers: My Lords, I too should declare that I spent many years of my life in, or close to, the nuclear industry although that is no longer the case. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, although I believe that I agreed with everything he said.
I listened to the distinguished speech of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, with great interest, as I am sure did the whole House. I am glad that my friend and colleague from Imperial College is now my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, gave the members of his sub-committee an enjoyable, if at some times exhausting, run for our money. Of particular value were the visits that we paid to other countries which struggle to safeguard nuclear waste. Some of them had gone further than we had in Britain, and that boosted our belief that the matter was not insoluble, as some would have us think.
494
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, has given an excellent account of our findings and I certainly do not intend to repeat them. I want only, first, to emphasise our firm conclusion that what is required and can be provided is "phased geological disposal". That includes a vital element of long-term monitoring, and postpones the need for irreversible actions until it is generally agreed to be safe to take them.
There is no realistic alternative to phased geological disposal. Some propose that waste can be stored indefinitely on the surface. Certainly it can be kept alongside the power station that produces it during the life of that station—50 years or so, but indefinite surface storage would be irresponsible, given the need for maintenance and periodic hazardous repackaging, and the political instabilities that are likely over many hundreds of years.
Secondly, we proposed a sequence of actions by which there would be full public consultation at every stage of the process over 25 years or more, together with properly appointed bodies to oversee and manage the whole long enterprise. We now await the Government's own consultation process—I must confess with some unease, because it is not a matter that should any longer be delayed and I am not encouraged by the government response to think that it will not be.
Throughout our inquiry I was reminded of a much earlier inquiry referred to briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, which was conducted by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, which at the time I chaired. In 1976 it produced a report entitled Nuclear Power and the Environment. In it we recommended that there should be no commitment to a large programme of nuclear power until it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the waste could be safeguarded for the indefinite future.
Those were the days when the industry was pushing for an absurdly large nuclear programme, which it is certainly not doing now. In any case, there is no point in making such a recommendation today. Thanks to several decades of civil and military production, the waste now exists in quantity and has to be dealt with. Neither expansion, nor indeed contraction, of production will greatly affect the scale of the problem to which we are now irrevocably committed.
However, global warming is also upon us, and it is generally agreed that we must reduce carbon emissions as a sensible precaution. Renewable resources seem unlikely to substitute effectively for oil and gas, at any rate for many decades. In these circumstances, there will surely be fresh demands for nuclear power in the coming decades.
If that happens, as I believe it will, the situation envisaged in the 1976 report could recur, whereby nuclear production is to be held back pending resolution of the disposal problem. That is why it is so

495
important that we lose no more time getting to grips with it. We have already had the expensive failure of Nirex at Sellafield, which represents a considerable delay. Further delay may well put the future of our electricity production in jeopardy.
There is a further lesson briefly to be drawn from a comparison between the 1976 report and the present one. The Royal Commission could not fail to notice the arrogance and condescension of the leaders of the nuclear industry in those days towards all environmental criticism. Nowadays, the tables are precisely turned. Now it is the leaders of the environmental movement who are arrogant and condescending, not even, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, mentioned, willing to accept an adverse decision of Parliament.
No doubt arrogance is endemic to public life. Lack of it is described as "grey". But arrogance contributes not a jot to the solution of great technological problems. What we need now is concerted hard work in which those who provide the technology and those who care for the environment gradually learn to trust each other to seek agreed solutions.
The programme of consultations, decisions and actions proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, provides the necessary public framework. I hope that the Government, when they have done their own consultation, will agree to implement it.
12.8 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, for whose wisdom I have the greatest respect. I am glad that, as I depart from this House, he and others, who have reached their position on these red Benches by merit rather than by the anachronistic but biological process of birth, will be here to carry forward the wisdom and integrity of the House.
I pay tribute also to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for his vigorous and clear-sighted chairmanship, based, as he said, on his long familiarity with the issues. The noble Lord has politely and sensibly deferred his comments on the Government's reply until his winding up remarks. We do not have that opportunity, and I shall follow my noble friend Lord Jenkin in responding to the Government's position as stated in that response.
I should like to say how strongly I endorse the principal conclusions of our report. We avoided alarmist language but there are clearly very hard reasons for concern about the management of nuclear waste in our country. We make the point that there is a large legacy of existing and predicted waste that must be dealt with. We present the organisational arrangements, which are not satisfactory at the moment. We recognise that past approaches to find a solution have not worked, and we recognise that radioactive waste management is no less profoundly serious an issue now than it was in 1976 when the Royal Commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, first looked at it.
496
I read a few extracts from another report. A committee of your Lordships' House stated that it believed that,
"steady progress towards a solution of the radioactive waste problem should be independent of any decisions on the future of nuclear power … The need to take the first steps now does not mean that unsatisfactory solutions will be imposed in an arbitrary way without due consideration. The date of commencing actual disposal operations is a political and not a technical decision".
The committee believed that,
"the nuclear industry and the regulatory authorities have to learn how to make better and more frequent use of the mass communication media … The history of sudden and rapid shifts in United Kingdom policy can hardly have improved public confidence".
I do not need to go on. That was the report of a committee which I chaired in 1988. What has happened since? The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, says that he hopes our present report will be a landmark. It deserves to be because it is extremely sound and has excellent opinions. But there has been no shortage of sound and excellent opinions in the past and no government of any colour or description have taken sufficient notice of them.
This is a problem shared with, let us say, the world and certainly with our fellow citizens of Europe. There are those among us who have enjoyed the benefits of a secure power supply from nuclear facilities; we enjoy the benefits of radiotherapy when we are sick; and—perhaps this is more contentious—we have enjoyed relative stability and world peace during the fearsome confrontation period when the policy was defined as "mutually-assured destruction".
Let us consider briefly what is happening in the European Community. The European Parliament is engaged in very much the same debate. The report by Mr Giles Chichester, MEP, is available on the European parliamentary web. On the 22nd of this month the Parliament discussed the urgency of the problem of decommissioning nuclear power stations and other nuclear installations in Europe where there are 128 nuclear power stations in service and 39 being decommissioned.
At European Community level there is now serious concern over the decommissioning of the JRC installations that were installed in the first heady days of the EURATOM treaty of 1957 when EURATOM was given the task of contributing to the speedy establishment and growth of nuclear industries by creating the requisite conditions. It did so by setting up research stations which were scattered through Europe. One of those stations—Ispra—has been closed for a long time. Decommissioning has become a serious issue. The Commission's recent report, Cm. No. 114, recognises that the continuing maintenance of those research centres presents a steady drain on resources and an increasing risk to the environment. The safe disposal of the nuclear materials in those sites is now an urgent problem.
Our Government contribute to the decisions made in Europe through the Environment Council. I should like to ask the noble Lord how seriously our Government take this issue and how seriously they are

497
urging the European Community to reach decisions on those facilities for which the Community as a whole is responsible.
In the Select Committee we had a small discussion on exactly to whom our report was to be addressed. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, will remember very well what I said, which was that we were approaching devolution. Our report was published at the end of March, just a few days before the devolved Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament were instituted, although they did not, of course, become active until July.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, will remember that I wanted to address our report to the entire devolved administrative system which was about to be set up. As is still the case in legal documents in this day and age where "his" refers to "his or hers", we agreed that "Government and Parliament" should refer to the governance and the assemblies or Parliament throughout the devolved institutions that were about to be set up. I am pleased to note that, in the introduction to their reply, the Government clearly state:
"The Government and the devolved administrations propose to publish a detailed and wide-ranging consultation paper early in 2000".
That is admirable. But, necessarily, I ask the noble Lord who will reply what consultations he or his department have undertaken with the devolved administrations. What debate have those devolved administrations engaged in to enable the noble Lord to make that very positive statement? I believe it is an extremely important statement because, unless we involve the devolved administrations, we shall not get anywhere at all. Therefore, although I agree firmly with my noble friend Lord Jenkin that Parliament must be the absolute arbiter, under the devolved arrangements there is not now only one parliament. There are parliaments and assemblies which must be involved.
We are agreed that the process should involve people. I rather abhor the phrase "the public". Some of the Eastern languages which I speak have a way of saying "you" which either means "you and me" or "you and not me". I have a feeling that when we use the word "public", we tend to mean somebody who is not us. I believe that we should talk about people and that we should go further. Instead of saying "the public", we should say "my spouse and I and our children and our grandchildren think this". I believe that that is the way in which the process must devolve. It must involve people.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, aptly illustrated the public mistrust of science. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, gave us a brilliant exposition of science. I understand what risk means, and the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, gave a balanced view of risks. But, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin emphasised, it is not perverse of people to be unpersuaded by the cold facts of science. Through the focus groups and through the people's juries, we know more and more about the way that sensible people can reach sensible decisions.
498
However, even sensible people are not persuaded by facts and figures. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, who has now left his place, became involved in a debate on exactly what is meant by "probability", which we all remember.
These are unfamiliar terms, and the hazards are so horrible that you cannot expect people to have balanced mathematical approaches to those hazards. Inevitably, the risks are more feared than the equally terrible but much more familiar road accidents, which have taken away a significant number of people, including in my case, close relatives. If we were to look around us, I believe we should all find that we had lost friends and relations through car accidents. None the less, we all drive.
We have agreed—and the report is very firm on this—that the public must have a say. There are processes for involving the public; there are processes for involving people; and, because I shall not be here, there are processes for involving in the future my spouse and my children.
In this report we recognise that one of the major institutional perversities of the present system is the planning system. We refer to this in paragraphs 5.35 and 5.36 where we call for improvements. The Government have responded to that by reference to their own documents. They have referred to the consultation paper, Modernising Planning—Streamlining the processing of major projects through the planning system. They have not referred to the paper by the right honourable Richard Caborn, published in April 1999 and also entitled Modernising Planning. There is also a document called Planning Policy Guidance Note No. 11 on the subject of regional planning.
Those are tinkering documents. Essentially, they are conservative with a small "c". I therefore hope that the Minister will say that the modifications to the planning system are anathema to the Prime Minister. They are not a solution to our present problem. As the report makes clear, we need a widespread process to develop a consensus.
I have already referred to the importance of involving the new devolved assemblies and the Scottish Parliament. The Welsh Assembly has responsibilities for sustainable development. I praise the Government in their approach to sustainable waste management in England. Their publication, A Way with Waste, recognises that waste solutions are an essential part of sustainable development. As the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said as long ago as 1976, we should not develop any process until there is in hand a scheme for disposing of the waste that will be created. That is a key element in sustainable development.
The UK Round Table on Sustainable Development recommended that the Scottish Parliament should charge its Executive with the same duties that the Welsh Assembly is charged with by statute. The regional development agencies are charged with sustainable development duties. Each of those should be reminded by the Government that sustainable development carries within itself the concept of

499
sustainable management of waste. As I have emphasised, every one of us benefits from the nuclear facilities we have, be it through power, medicine or, probably, defence. This task must involve not only the Government but the entire gamut of regional and devolved administrative, consultative and policy-making institutions set up by them.
We are beginning to understand the exercise of the new devolved system in the United Kingdom. It is important that that whole system should be brought to bear on this problem.
12.21 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, first, I join other noble Lords in welcoming to this House the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. After hearing his fascinating speech and knowing of his reputation in the past, we are grateful that he is to join our committee in the future.
As has been said, our report was published in March. The government response was finally published four days ago, on 25th October. I hoped that it would at least agree with our emphasis on the urgency of the present situation. I am glad that they will publish a consultation document in early 2000. However, nearly all the other recommendations of our report seem to be put off and we are left with little government encouragement after all our careful work.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, there is a whiff of procrastination about decision-making in the future, which we believe is wrong. The time taken to arrive at decisions must depend, as we and the Government say, on public consultation. Nevertheless, the programme will need government drive with all patties behind it if safety is to be safeguarded for future generations.
It is nearly two years since Lord Phillips of Ellesmere, who chaired the main Select Committee on Science and Technology, suggested with his customary courage that we should study this difficult subject. He chaired our sub-committee expertly and openly until his illness overcame him and, to our great sadness, he died. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, stepped into the breach magnificently, as always. He chaired the committee equally expertly until the publication of our report. We were fortunate in the experience and expertise of both of our chairmen, our expert adviser, Ms Marion Hill, and our clerk, Don Rolt.
As we all knew from the start, the problem of the management of nuclear waste is unique in its difficulty, bearing in mind its hazardous nature and the fact that the hazard may continue for hundreds of thousands of years. Some people may wish to bury their heads in the sand and put off decisions for as long as possible, emphasising the long-term nature of the hazard. We took the opposite view: that waste exists as a result of past civil and military nuclear programmes. It will not go away. Whatever decisions are made in future about nuclear power and the reprocessing of spent fuel, it will continue to exist and must be dealt with. We owe that responsibility to future generations so that they too can continue to deal with it safely and responsibly.
500
Our consultations with witnesses were all open to the public. Many witnesses with considerable expertise provided evidence, both written and in person, which again is published. We believe deeply in the importance of openness and transparency in dealing with this difficult subject in order to build up public trust in the future. We therefore operated in that manner during our inquiry.
Members of the committee travelled abroad to gather international opinion on the options available for disposal as it is an international question; for instance, disposal on the bed of the deep ocean might have been a feasible solution but is now prohibited by international agreements.
It is clear that while learning from each other's experience and sharing expertise, individual nations will have to make their own responsible decisions for disposal of their own nuclear waste. As research continues internationally, results need to be available to all nations so that they can benefit in their future decision-making. However, we were impressed by the majority view from the scientific and technological communities world-wide in favour of deep geological disposal.
Our conclusion, therefore, is also in favour of phased deep geological disposal in a repository where the waste can be monitored and, if necessary, retrieved; the repository being kept open while research data is accumulated and closed only when there is sufficient competence to do so. That is a key decision of our committee.
We hope that a long time-scale of open consultation and public government decision-making, which we expect to stretch over a period of about 24 years, will build up public trust and acceptance of the resultant programme set out on pages 51 and 52 of our report, including a timetable of many years. We believe that our suggested programme of parliamentary and government decision-making, interspersed stage by stage with open and transparent consultation, is the best way to build up that trust. We set out our suggested programme, including the publication of both Green and White Papers, for consideration, both publicly and by Parliament, as an important stage in the process leading to a Bill establishing future policy.
I am glad to say that the Government's response accepts the need for that kind of consultation before controversial decisions are made. However, these nettles will need to be grasped firmly in future. That will include establishment of a nuclear waste management commission, outside government, which, to begin with, can operate in a non-statutory way in gathering public opinion. A Bill would later give it powers of oversight. It must operate openly, making annual reports, have expert scientific and technical staff, and be properly funded over a long period so that it can carry out necessary research and maintain records of research already carried out. In that context, I was glad to see that the Government, in their response, specifically value the strong research base and expertise of Nirex in the mean time.

501
The commission will also need to ensure adequate long-term funding for repository development, operation and closure by the Government. The Environment Agency needs to be given statutory powers over the storage of nuclear waste, not only on civilian sites but also, over a period, on military sites to ensure similar safety standards. I am glad the Government give encouragement to that.
Eventually, there will be a need to design, construct, operate and close repositories. For that, we recommend the setting up of a radioactive waste disposal company, industry and MoD-based, which will also have to operate in an open way. At that point, Nirex and RWMAC should be disbanded.
With the Bill through Parliament, the commission and company in place reporting annually to Parliament and the public, the most difficult part of the operation will need to start. I refer to selecting a site or sites for the repository. We are all deeply aware of the NIMBY (not in my back yard) syndrome. I was involved as a councillor in Essex's fiercely fought battle against the third London airport at Stansted. However, one of the things one learns in public life is that one cannot win them all, and the site for the third London airport, sadly, is in Essex.
Similarly, the actual site or sites will have to be found for this repository or repositories. The search must be open, transparent and involve the public, especially the local population who must be compensated practically for the blight that may be caused. We have not been good at that in the past as a nation. We must consider the anxieties of individuals and the local authority in planning practical support, both financially and in terms of local infrastructure, in good time and make sure that the scale of support is well known locally.
There is no doubt of the public's anxiety about the consequences of the disposal of nuclear waste, both in its extreme form by single issue groups, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred, but also through its technical complexity and lack of understanding of the effects of radiation by the general public. There will be a need for patient and clear explanation by the scientists, as illustrated by the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, this morning, and the technologies involved. Public education will take time. The media need also to present balanced, factual information and to seek confrontation and sensational stories less avidly if a good decision is eventually to be reached.
The present storage is not designed to last for ever, and within 50 years the waste will need to be repackaged and transferred if proper decisions have not been laid long before that. That would mean leaving a crisis legacy to our grandchildren, which is neither right nor proper, nor is it responsible. The nettle needs to be grasped now to set our timetable lines of action in motion so that a stable and controllable situation is left for future generations. The Government need to start that action without delay.
12.32 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, we should all be grateful to my noble friend Lord Tombs and his sub-committee for this well-prepared report on a subject which has, for far too long, been one of weeping, wailing, hand-wringing and wondering where to go, especially by green pressure groups.
It was in October 1997 when I tried, by means of a debate in your Lordships' House, to draw your Lordships' attention to the problems of disposal of high level nuclear waste. At the time I was unaware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology had only just decided to form a sub-committee to inquire into that subject. Unfortunately for me, that deprived me of what should have been the star speakers in my debate, as they were all now members of the sub-committee. However, the debate proceeded, albeit slightly lamely, and I drew your Lordships' attention to the neglected use of synthetic titanium ceramic rock instead of borosilicate glass for the safe encapsulation of high level and possibly other nuclear waste. I was privileged later to give evidence to the subcommittee. In the meantime, I was invited to join the company, Synroc International Limited, which was trying to encourage the use of such synthetic rock, and so I must now declare that interest.
I do not wish to go over my evidence again or what I said in the debate of 1997, save to emphasise that borosilicate glass, admirable in its day, came into use for the purpose of packaging high level nuclear waste, although comparatively less research had been done into it, unlike ceramic which had been researched to death for 15 years, all of which has been highly satisfactory. Yet it was never used commercially and the original patents have expired. The organisation originally possessed of the proprietary rights for commercialisation proudly announces that it has had a continuing programme of research but omits to say how it failed commercially. All that is now past and new technology from elsewhere is available.
As your Lordships may know, I have been extolling the use of titanium ceramic as being today's technology over glass; but I now find that I may be in error. There is yet another technology—described in paragraph 3.10 of this excellent report we are now debating—which in my opinion is set fair to become tomorrow's, if not today's, technology. I refer to transmutation, already well researched and a fully viable technology, especially for surplus plutonium. The only bar to its use so far seems to be the totally uneconomic and large size of accelerators, apart from physical or chemical partitioning, to provide the necessary energy to the protons used in the bombardment of the waste.
So there is an accepted technology, unable to be used owing to the uneconomic size of parts of the equipment. However, recent developments show that with backward wave linear accelerators of Los Alamos connection, protons can be given the necessary energy and, through a subcritical nuclear reactor to process nuclear waste by splitting long-lived actinides into short-lived isotopes, at the same time produce useful

503
energy. Being a subcritical reactor, there is no question of any possible damage to the environment, any more than would result from an accident at a big contemporary, non-nuclear power station.
Even this BWLAP technology produces a requirement for an unfortunately large accelerator. But there is better news yet with the latest technology incorporating a three-dimensional accelerator. The size of the accelerator comes down to a manageable, and even almost portable, unit of a 10-metre cube, giving the possibility of its additional use in medical and other industrial or security projects.
In this excellent report we have the recommendation that we should have a nuclear waste management commission. I heartily support that and can only hope that they will see and use the advantages of the newer and later technologies which provide for the better immediate packaging of high level waste with ceramics, rather than the ageing leaking glass and, best of all, render the waste far less radioactive as well. This will, of course, facilitate the use of phased, safe, deep deposit in areas at present undesirable on hydrological or other grounds.
Please let us not allow the new technology to become, as has happened for so many years with the ceramics, just a professor's "toy" and the subject of continuing endless research without practical application. Perhaps we may hope that the Government will produce their fully comprehensive policy as quickly as possible, for both parliamentary and public acceptance, so that the proposed commission can get to work and help to solve this pressing problem.
12.40 p.m.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee, I have interests to declare in the chairmanship of an economic consultancy working in the energy field and as a former director of the Energy Group.
In contributing to this important debate—what a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and what a sadness to think that we shall hear no more from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, or even from his mobile phone—I should like to join other members of the Select Committee in thanking the Government for their response but in a tone somewhat tinged by disappointment. They are in danger of entering a closed loop on this issue. It is essential that a policy for the disposal of nuclear waste should command general support. But policy does not create itself. The general attitude to the problem can be expressed as hoping that if this particular sleeping dog is left to lie, someone may have a better idea of how to manage it when it wakes up.
Of course, it is true that immediate solutions are not needed, but that attitude can lead to sheer irresponsibility with respect to the issues involved in the use of nuclear power. The ongoing management of nuclear waste from our use of energy is enough of a burden to pass on to future generations. It would be quite unconscionable to pass on all the burden of thinking about it as well.
504
I commend the Government on undertaking to begin consultation in the new year. However, I have to say that their reluctance to commit to a timetable for the whole process of policy formulation fills me with gloom. With merely the intention to "see how consultation goes", it seems to me rather too clear that successive Ministers will find it easy to dump the problem in the too difficult box labelled, "Leave for my successor".
The Government have rejected the committee's advice to appoint a commission to undertake this consultation exercise. To be fair, I think that the arguments for doing so are indeed finely balanced. On the one hand, if a commission comes up with a policy that Ministers do not like, the process of policy formulation becomes more rather than less difficult. On the other hand, a commission might attract greater public trust than politicians or their Civil Service departments, so that its proposed solution would be more likely to command support or at least acquiescence.
I would assert that with greater confidence if there were not evidence of greater mistrust in scientists than in the past, making it rather harder to believe that a committee of experts could walk where Whitehall fears to go. But to my mind, the clinching argument in favour of a commission undertaking this work is its visibility. Government is perpetually consulting on almost anything that you care to mention, for indefinable periods of time and a range of reasons, including a simple desire to prevaricate. A visible commission would be under much greater pressure to complete its work and report.
The Government are right to say that such a commission could not sensibly consult and advise on whether it should itself have charge of the process of disposal. But if Ministers understood that to be the recommendation of the committee, there must have been a failure of communication. Once policy had been decided by Ministers and legislated on by Westminster, a new statutory commission, essentially different from the original advisory commission, would of course have to be appointed. The Government are hedging their bets by saying that decisions on management should await the outcome of consultation. That is reasonable enough. But in declining to express a view even on the advisability of appointing a statutory commission, answerable to Parliament, to oversee management, I think that they are being just a little constipated.
There is one other issue of acceptability that I should like to stress. The mechanisms of consultation and consensus-building are important in the development of a viable national policy. But they are, as our report emphasises, quite distinct from the problems involved in securing local agreement to a disposal site. National consensus on such issues, however carefully constructed, will always be fragile. I do not believe that it can or should be mobilised to force acceptance of a disposal site on any local community. I personally believe strongly that we must proceed, as the Swedes are doing, only on the basis of consent.

505
That has some very important implications. Most obviously, there will be no hope of achieving agreement unless a particular local community sees some benefit. That, of course, strengthens arguments for proximity between production and disposal. But let us make no mistake about it—achieving acceptance will depend not merely on government sensitivity but also on government generosity. The usual Treasury attitude, which is to concede as little as possible to begin with in the hope of ending up without spending too much, would be highly counter-productive. On this most sensitive of issues, I believe that—as in Sweden—the views of the local community must be respected. Once lost, the local argument cannot be rewon. Therefore, Whitehall must learn from past mistakes in this respect, and think well ahead.
Our report ranged widely not only over the science of disposal, but also over the perception of risk and the issues of accountability and acceptability. We did not, of course, all agree on all issues. I should, therefore, like to pay heart-felt tribute to our chairmen: Lord Phillips, who is so much missed, and the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, showed immense skill in achieving consensus and bringing this inquiry to a substantial conclusion. His achievement has been to lay out a way forward for government in this difficult area. I hope that his efforts will not be wasted.
12.46 p.m.
Lord Cavendish of Furness: My Lords, it is difficult to exaggerate the debt of gratitude owed to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and his colleagues on the Select Committee for this remarkable document entitled, Management of Nuclear Waste. I join other noble Lords enthusiastically in welcoming the report, which is more than just an excellent review of the present position. It is also more than just a series of recommendations, good as they may be. It seems to me that it presents the Government with a wonderful opportunity because it provides a new foundation upon which to build a clear policy for the future management of nuclear waste. Moreover, it unambiguously services notice that this is a national issue of first importance and that it should no longer be delayed.
As some noble Lords may know, I was involved in the issue of nuclear waste when I had the honour to serve for six years as a director of UK Nirex Limited, appointed by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. For a time, I was a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, whose maiden speech it was such an extraordinary pleasure to hear. As it happens, in June of this year I was hugely gratified, and slightly surprised, to be re-appointed by the present Secretary of State. Unfortunately, I do not think that I measured up to his exacting standards because I survived in that position for only a day—or was it a day and a half?
I cannot let this occasion pass without saying how greatly I was struck, as a director of Nirex, by the tremendous professionalism and commitment I found among Nirex staff at all levels. There was also a vast base of knowledge and experience in that relatively
506
small organisation. It has been and remains an anxiety of mine that the considerable values that have accumulated through science programmes and other work could be lost, perhaps by accident.
New organisations are envisaged in this Select Committee report. If the existing structure of Nirex were dismantled, I earnestly hope that the Government would take a lead in protecting—or cause to be protected—the assets that successor organisations could take advantage of. I pay tribute also to the chairmen under whom I worked at Nirex. I believe that Nirex was fortunate in the leadership of both chairmen with whom I worked: first, Sir Richard Morris and then the present chairman, Mr. David Bonsor. They did, and continue to do, a wonderful job, often operating in extremely difficult circumstances.
Nirex has never been short of critics and the company itself acknowledges that many lessons were to be learned from the events leading up to the refusal of planning permission for the rock characterisation facility in Cumbria. Science, as my noble friend Lord Jenkin says, is not enough. First and foremost is the approach to gaining public acceptance for any policy on how best to deal with radioactive waste. The report is, I am sure, absolutely correct, as other noble Lords have said, in recognising that full consultation in an atmosphere of openness and transparency will be essential if any government policy is to succeed.
I and, I am told, former Nirex colleagues welcome the Government's intention to consult on all aspects of policy and policy development so that the whole landscape can be minutely explored and thought through before attempting to move forward. I understand that Nirex has just implemented its own transparency policy which is designed to give interested parties access to the scientific and technical information needed to take decisions. This is an important step forward and a practical demonstration of how lessons have been learnt by Nirex.
Mistakes were made in the past but the central fact remains that radioactive waste exists—as my noble friend Lady Platt said—and more is being produced as we speak. It is simply unacceptable for anyone to try to ignore the problem and hope that something turns up eventually to "magic" this beastly material away. Britain has to develop a long-term policy designed to protect current and future generations from the hazards posed by this material.
Further work and further consultation are essential features of any future strategy. I join the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and other noble Lords in commending the conference organised by UK CEED—in which noble Lords were so much involved—last May. It seemed to me an excellent example of how to involve a broad spectrum of people in discussions with policy makers. It showed that when people learn about issues of site selection, risk analysis and how one can engineer practical solutions to problems, they in turn pose highly intelligent questions which need good and proper answers from the experts. This, I venture to

507
suggest, is the way to generate trust and reduce fear. The technicians and the decision makers need to learn from such exercises and design processes that take account of the concerns of people at large. Only then will there be any measure of public acceptance for any future policy.
There is one aspect to this debate that needs consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who will reply for the Government, makes no secret of his membership of Friends of the Earth and therefore probably knows better than I what is the current thinking of Friends of the Earth and other "green" NGOs towards building a repository. I hope that he may take the opportunity of telling us that. In the past it seemed always to me that they adopted a tactical and ideological line which held that the very concept of a repository was to be opposed because it enhanced the nuclear industry's chance of securing new build once this generation of nuclear power stations is decommissioned. This of course generated contrived criticism and gratuitous hostility towards Nirex. What the "greens" most feared, put simply, was a solution being found to the intractable problem of nuclear waste.
The question of whether Britain maintains the option to build new nuclear generating capacity will be central to future debates. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, touched on that point. I do not think that that is a matter for today's debate but I hope that it will be decided sooner rather than later because it is such a closely related matter. But today we can all concentrate on the issue in hand which is that radioactive waste exists, more is going to be produced, especially with decommissioning, and the country needs to have a long-term policy on the safest place for these materials. It seems to me self-evident that below ground is better than on the surface.
The issue of the science is another area of much discussion. I welcome the Government's intention to review all the science of deep disposal to see exactly where more work needs to be done and where there are areas of consensus. Obviously, there needs to be a sound scientific underpinning to the whole endeavour.
The issue of radioactive waste is one where there are few if any votes to be won. This is an area where the population relies on the Government to do what is right rather than what is electorally expedient. Like radioactive materials, governments also have half lives. All administrations decay with time; their will and their authority decline. But this Government are relatively young and on this issue Ministers can surely dispense with political advice and do what Ministers should do, which is decide. With a huge majority in another place the Government have the chance to develop and implement a policy on radioactive waste management that will serve the country well for generations to come. It will be an enduring achievement of Ministers if they accept this challenge.
12.55 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Oxburgh on a marvellous and important maiden speech. He is a great addition to this House.
I put my name down to speak in this debate on this excellent report for two reasons, although I can claim no expertise at all on the subject. First, like my noble friend Lord Flowers, I believe that it is likely that the global warming problem of fossil fuels may give rise to strong pressures to return to nuclear power generation. We should remember that if the economies of China and India take off in a sustained and serious fashion in the years ahead, the current level of CO2 emissions will seem rather modest if they have to rely on fossil fuels. Therefore, industry and government need to find acceptable ways—both technically, and, just as importantly, politically—to deal with nuclear wastes.
The second reason I want to speak in this debate is that the nuclear waste problem is part of a much wider problem which is, in large measure, a political problem. I refer of course to the public perception of risk and the widening gap between actual risk and perceived risk on which many have spoken with great effect, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Winston. There is, indeed, a breathtaking muddle-headedness, particularly in the media, leading to deep suspicion of science, scientists, engineers and technical experts. I shall return to that point.
I found the technical side of the report thorough and convincing and I can readily go along with the basic but important conclusion of "phased geological disposal". I find irresponsible, to put it no higher, the much touted "indefinite surface storage" proposals which are based on the hope that something better might turn up and which are advanced by some of the so-called "environmental organisations". Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether they want to find any solution. In that connection, I noted with the greatest interest the quote from the report from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, and the question of and answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Platt.
To me, the most important part of the report is chapter 5 on the problems of public acceptability and chapter 6 on policy development and organisational issues. I believe that it is wise to separate the decision on which method or process of disposal should be adopted—which is clearly a national issue—from decisions on which site or sites should be used, which are locational issues. It is wise to separate widely these issues in time—by years—and it is wise that there should be extensive public discussion and that Parliament should be involved at each stage. To recognise that the whole process will take at least 25 years is both prudent and proper. We should be under no illusions, however, that the locational stage—which the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg mentioned—of where to site such facilities will be fraught with difficulty. There is, indeed, a big educational process to be gone through if public acceptability is to be achieved.

509
It seems to me that this part of the report has been carefully thought through and I look forward to the Minister's response. I have to say that I was not aware that the Government had produced a response. When I inquired at the Printed Paper Office at the end of last week, there had not been a response.
It is in connection with that response that I revert to the issue of public attitudes to risk and the perception of risk in general. I suggest that the wider problem is now becoming a very serious cause for concern which needs to be tackled by government. This report is helpful in this regard, but equally, if government—and for that matter society—also start to tackle the problem on a wider front, it will serve to help in progressing the nuclear waste disposal problem.
The problem I am alluding to arises in its most strident form when we have a disaster such as the recent rail crash at Ladbroke Grove, or equally, for example, at Clapham Junction. It arises in a rather more complex way over BSE and new variant CJD. There are, of course, many other examples, to which there have already been references today. The characteristic of all of them is the demand for, and indeed the implicit notion of, completely safe systems. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was close to answering questions on this only two days ago.
This problem also gives rise to the well identified paradox that people are happy to take enormous risks in their private lives but react violently against statistically minute risks in the public domain. It gives rise, as I have said, to the unfortunate issue of the credibility and trustworthiness of professional experts. It also gives rise to serious distortions and anomalies in investment decisions. It hampers, delays and distorts policy-making. I suspect that the economic and social costs of those distortions is colossal. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has given a number of examples. However, I realise that the House is expecting an important announcement in a moment and so I shall not add to the examples that he gave.
In the hot-house world of health and safety regulation, rationality goes out of the window, and so we are left with a situation in which reality—let us call it "measured risk"—is swamped by perceived risk. In other words, the political reality is what is perceived, not what is real. All this is of course well known. It was the subject of an important Royal Society report in 1992. In recent years, the social scientists, through ESRC funding, have done a lot of work in this area. What is not clear to me is whether we are getting any closer to ameliorating the problem.
It seems to me that a huge educational effort led by, but not confined to, government over a period of years is now necessary. I should like to think that this report has shown us part of the way forward. That is valuable, but I rather suspect that a much wider effort will be required.

Hereditary Peers' Elections
1.3 p.m.
The Clerk of the Parliaments: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now announce the results of the election of 15 hereditary Peers ready to serve as Deputy Speakers or other office holders, in accordance with the provisions of the House of Lords Bill and Standing Order 9.
Six hundred and thirty-one Peers completed valid ballot papers. A paper setting out the complete results will be available in the Printed Paper Office and the Library when I sit down. That paper gives the names of the successful candidates and the unsuccessful candidates, with the number of votes cast for each.
At the election held on 27th and 28th October the following candidates have been elected:

Candidate

Votes

C. Mar

570

L. Strabolgi

558

L. Elton

558

L. Lyell

547

L. Skelmersdale

544

L. Aberdare

530

L. Brougham and Vaux

525

V. Falkland

519

L. Colwyn

488

V. Oxfuird

482

L. Reay

471

L. Geddes

461

V. Simon

453

L. Methuen

421

L. Ampthill

418

The tie between Lord Strabolgi and Lord Elton was resolved by taking into account voters' preferences, which puts Lord Strabolgi ahead of Lord Elton on that basis.

Nuclear Waste: Science and Technology Committee Report
1.5 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, as so often happens in this House, it is an elegant quirk of fate that it falls to me, as a hereditary Peer who will probably not be with you for very much longer, to thank the Clerk for that announcement and to congratulate all noble Lords who won in the election. If it is not too presumptuous of me to do so, I should like also to commiserate with all those who did not get through. There are more elections coming up and there is still hope for them, I think. Having made those brief remarks, I continue with the debate on the Science and Technology Committee's report.
I speak with some trepidation because I am a rank amateur among so many professionals in your Lordships' House. However, I wish to declare my reason for standing up today. I did speak some five years ago in the debate on the low level waste repository at Billingham, to which my noble friend

511
Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred. So maybe this is my swan song but at least there is continuity: I have spoken before on this subject in your Lordships' House.
I join other speakers in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and all members of his Select Committee, for an excellent report. I thought it very thorough and very detailed. It is a veritable mine of information about the state and size of the problem which faces us, going into great detail. More particularly, as my noble friend Lord Cavendish stated, it is important to future generations. It faces us, but more importantly it faces future generations. It is a sobering prospect to read in paragraph 2.13 that safety assessments of high level waste disposal indicate that potential risks to humans may be significant for hundreds of thousands of years.
This is an international problem. Reading through the report I was interested to see a table which lists in descending order the countries, showing the percentage of electricity generated there by nuclear power stations. Top of the list was Lithuania, with just over 81 per cent of its electricity supply generated by nuclear power. France came second with 78.2 per cent. The United Kingdom was quite a long way down the list, at only 27.5 per cent. I know that we are having a little local difficulty with our neighbours across the Channel at the moment but we share a common problem with the disposal of nuclear waste. Certainly, with their placing on the list, it is a significant problem for them too. I hope that we shall be able to discuss this problem with our neighbours and seek to resolve it in the near future.
It is difficult for me, as an amateur, to understand in volume terms the size of the problem. The report states that the total stock of all radioactive waste as at April 1994 was 40 million terabecquerels. I hope I have got the pronunciation right. Not knowing what terabecquerels were, I turned to the glossary of the report, as suggested. It told me that a terabecquerel was 1012 becquerels. I was still somewhat confused, but I understand from inquiries I have made in the Library that this is a unit to measure the relative speed of nuclear fusion or fission—I am not sure exactly which. However, it still does not enable me to visualise the volume or the weight of this waste. I could not find that anywhere in the report. It would have been of great interest to me to have been able to visualise the actual dimensions in terms of size and scale of the problem. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to enlighten me when he responds.
As my noble friend Lord Cavendish said, this is a big problem. It is getting bigger; and it has to be addressed. I was pleased to see in the report that disposal of radioactive waste in deep oceans has now been excluded effectively as a practical viable option. That had always concerned me. As has been said, the most favoured option is the emplacement of vitrified or synroc high level waste in deep geological formations on land. This would require the creation of deep mined tunnels and caverns. When I read that, my thoughts turned to the possibility of adapting one or two of our disused coal mines. That might make sense; and it
512
would provide employment opportunities in some areas of high unemployment. There may be insurmountable geological problems in doing so. As my noble friend Lady Platt of Writtle said, there is always the NIMBY problem. I do not know whether that suggestion is a "runner", but I hope that at least it may be considered.
The executive summary states that the present policy for waste management in this country is fragmented. It goes on to say that the problems require changes in the organisational structure of waste management. Other noble Lords have referred to that. It proposes the setting up of a nuclear waste management commission and a separate radioactive waste disposal company. When established, those would subsume the role of Nirex and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. This seemed like a very sensible suggestion; I know that other noble Lords felt so too. Even if the Government respond with all possible speed to implement the Select Committee's report—it has been said by some noble Lords that they have dragged their feet thus far—the report states that it will take about 21 years even to start construction of some sort of deep mine facility. So time is our enemy; we have to move quickly.
I understand that the Government will be issuing their Green Paper early next year. I hope that the impetus as recommended by the Select Committee will be maintained thereafter.
1.12 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I shall leave it to the bench of experts behind me to enlighten the noble Earl on becquerels. Perhaps I may say at the outset what a privilege it was to be a member of the Select Committee which studied this complex and at times emotionally charged topic, under the firm, courteous, expert and enjoyable leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs.
I am pleased that we have had sight of the Government's response as a backdrop to the debate. But what a cautious response it is. The complexities of devolved responsibilities are no doubt an additional factor in the time it has taken to get to even this very cautious preliminary stage. But I was pleased to note the intention to bring as far as possible the Ministry of Defence's nuclear wastes under the civilian regulatory regime. Some of the MoD's holdings will present very difficult problems and their disposal will need very careful handling to sustain public confidence.
When they appeared before our Select Committee in December 1997, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Prescott, and the Minister of State for the Environment, Mr Meacher, said that they would be very interested in the content of our report, on which we were then just embarking. The new Government recognised, following the collapse of the Nirex proposals, that they had inherited no viable waste management strategy. They would have to start to develop a new one.

513
Now two years on, we seem to be very little nearer to embarking on a comprehensive and coherent approach. Our 18-month inquiry has pointed a way ahead. I believe that there is great merit in what has been proposed by our committee, even if the Government are not yet ready to adopt our suggestions. But before they embark on their approach, I think that it would be helpful if the Government were to establish very clearly who will have the lead in mapping and progressing the way ahead. What has struck me very forcefully is the spread of responsibility within government for the policy and management of nuclear wastes: DETR, DTI, MoD, the Scottish Office and a number of agencies all have important responsibilities.
If there is to be a joined-up approach to this topic, I hope that there will be agreement as to who will have the lead responsibility. My experience on Select Committees has demonstrated to me more than once that there is a world of difference in dealing with government departments when it is clear that one of them is both in the lead and takes responsibility for co-ordinating a collective, cross-department government response.
I think that the same principle is required when dealing with the wider public and with specialist interest groups on a topic as complex as the management of nuclear wastes. I hope that the Government will be minded to tackle this topic in that way; to make it clear who has the lead responsibility, and not be tempted to rely solely on the multi-departmental committee methods and sometimes unco-ordinated and conflicting statements which may be made on the many issues which arise.
Devolved responsibilities, in particular for the environment, will not make it any easier for central Government to co-ordinate such a response. But would it be acceptable for one part of the United Kingdom to adopt an alternative strategy for nuclear waste management from another? This issue is not in the same league as the question of whether eating beef on the bone is safe or unsafe to human health.
In our report we have devoted a complete chapter to the topic of plutonium, reprocessing and MOX. As we have said, whether spent fuel is reprocessed is a key factor in determining what types and volumes of waste have to be managed. That in turn may well have a bearing on the long-term management strategy that can be adopted. It was clear from our witnesses that there are major conflicting differences of view about reprocessing. I shall not attempt to summarise them now. But what is clear is that a major effort will be required to get a broad measure of agreement on this one aspect alone. If we are to proceed eventually to a form of underground storage, and ultimately underground disposal, it will be difficult if not impossible to make progress on the management issues for the existing quantities of waste without agreement on our longer-term reprocessing strategy.
514
In their response to our Recommendation No. 1, the Government say that the,
"quantity and nature of the wastes will be important in considering the relative merits of the various management options".
I agree, and so they must have reached a view about the plutonium stocks early in the consultation process. It may be tempting for the Government to argue that this is a commercial matter for the industry to determine. Up to a point I should like to agree with that, but the politics which surround all things nuclear will surely make such a purist approach a non-starter.
In his interesting response to the UK National Consensus Conference held last May, Mr Meacher said that site selection was, "an acutely political issue". I am sure that there is widespread agreement about that. It calls out for a central Government lead.
On all our visits to the other nuclear-generating countries, it was quickly evident that public acceptance of, or at least acquiescence in, the manner of disposal and the handling of nuclear waste had become a major issue. Indeed, there has been some criticism of our report in that it did not dwell sufficiently on the social, as opposed to the technical and scientific, problems. When on behalf of the committee I attended a Cumbrian County Council economy forum, which spent a day discussing our report and a number of other contributions on the subject, one of the points to emerge was that our report was seen as fundamentally science-driven. Some felt that it failed to carry an adequate weight of social and regional economic argument. I do not think that that is altogether fair. We are, after all, a science and technology committee.
Moreover, in a number of paragraphs we have drawn the reader's attention to the experience of other nations with their publics. Sweden—with perhaps the most sophisticated and sympathetic of publics on this issue—was still finding difficulties in getting a firm agreement to the siting of a long-term depository. Societal issues were seen as the challenge. Those required, first, an acceptance of the safety criteria and the concept of reasonable assurance.
Canada, which appointed the Seaborn review panel, found after almost 10 years' work that it would not be possible to proceed with site selection and examination until what it termed the "social issues" had been further addressed. In the United States, both site selection for use as a deep depository and the transportation of nuclear wastes across the continent were key issues of concern.
In France, with its major reliance on nuclear generation—and consequently a greater level of public acceptance of nuclear issues—there is a strong element of financial inducement to local communities to accept a depository site, or the search for one.
In dealing with the complex issues involved in waste disposal, it is our view that it is no longer possible to rely on the "decide, announce, defend" principle to take account of these social pressures. However achieved, the demand is loud and clear for greater transparency and greater openness at every stage.

515
However, I rather fear that those high-sounding phrases conceal a plethora of different and ambiguous meanings to different groups of people. There are some interesting parallels (which the Government will, I hope, consider) between this issue and the recent way in which genetic modification of crops and the BSE and related beef problems have had to be handled to gain, or attempt to gain, public, if not French, acceptance.
Our past approach to nuclear waste management has been shown to be flawed. That legacy will hang around the necks of those who are charged with mapping out and implementing a new way ahead. But the key question for government—it cannot be left to the industry to decide—is whether we go for phased underground disposal. We have proposed in outline, step by step, a way of tackling this all-important question.
I am concerned that the Government's preliminary cautious response will be seen by some as a lack of determination, a lack of resolve—even a lack of will—to take a lead on what will remain one of the most politically demanding long-term issues to be faced. I do not think that it is acceptable to allow the present major uncertainties to run on without resolution. It is time to start in earnest; time, once started, to keep up the momentum to secure an agreed waste management strategy for the long term.
1.24 p.m.
Lord Kirkwood: My Lords, I wish to start by welcoming from these Benches the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and to congratulate him on his excellent and informative maiden speech. I am sure that we have in our midst a new star to present scientific information to your Lordships.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, indicated, this is the last time I shall address the House. I do so with mixed feelings: sadness that I shall no longer have the privilege of sitting in this Chamber and contributing in a small way to the work of your Lordships' House; but the satisfaction of recognising that the hereditary right to attend this House was, in my view, indefensible. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for his kind remarks. I find it slightly puzzling that suddenly I have been propelled to the Front Bench at the point where I am about to receive an ejection. I suspect that the sudden motion will cause me to be a little unwell.
I hope that the good manners, good sense and judgment that I have experienced in the House will continue throughout the interim period and be passed on to the rim reformed House, whenever it may come into existence.
Perhaps I may now turn to the subject matter of the debate. I was not a member of the sub-committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, which prepared the report. There was clearly a long and detailed investigation into the problem of nuclear waste management, involving a great number of witnesses. The sub-committee is to be congratulated on coming up with a good, readable report, with valuable conclusions and recommendations.
516
One of the points made early in the report, and which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, is that the problem of waste disposal is with us now, even if no further nuclear power stations are built. Like the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, I believe that in the long run we will have to turn to more nuclear power—it will be our only choice—either to reduce atmospheric pollution and global warming, or when fossil fuels are spent.
Furthermore, the high and intermediate level of radioactive waste now existing in surface storage will need to be treated within the next 50 years or we shall run into further problems. These statements seem to be the "givens" from which the debate must proceed.
The Government, in their response to the report, embrace the need for open and transparent consultation with the public in developing a national plan for the management of waste disposal which covers all levels of waste, in order to achieve some consensus, public acceptance and to avoid the mistakes made in the Nirex planning application. This is an excellent start and there seems to be no reason for delaying the start of this exercise, which the Government in their response have scheduled for early 2000, unless there is a blip.
The Government appear to be less than enthusiastic about the recommendation to set up a nuclear waste management commission which would be outside day-to-day government and which would have authority and permanence. They would prefer it to be established, if at all, after widespread consultation. It is difficult to envisage how there could be any co-ordinated management or policy—which the Government agree is necessary—without a single independent body of the type suggested in the report. How will the Government proceed if the creation of such a body is prevented? Will they simply accept that management must continue to be fragmented? One proper role for the consultation exercise is surely to comment on the powers that various bodies should have in relation to one another to provide open and efficient management.
One of the functions suggested for the proposed commission was the co-ordination of all UK research on the long-term management of nuclear waste. At present, it is carried out by Nirex for intermediate-level waste and by the DETR for high-level waste. The benefit of that approach should be the greater transfer of ideas and knowledge across the spectrum of radioactivity level and the avoidance of duplicated work due to lack of communication. That would also allow more long-term research of a generic nature, rather than the narrow problem-solving that is specific to a particular section of the industry, which I believe to be a danger.
I follow the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, in suggesting a new technology—although nothing quite so radical as the one that he suggested. I refer to an account of work carried out by a colleague in the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Sheffield, Dr Fergus Gibb, who is a geologist. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, may see some virtue in this proposal.

517
It was described at a recent meeting of the British Association which took place earlier this year. It is an example of a solution to the problem of waste disposal which could deal with both high and intermediate-level waste, and possibly plutonium waste. The idea is to lower the still highly active waste in a container down a very deep borehole—to a depth of four to five kilometres. That is much deeper than the 500 metres envisaged at Sellafield. At that depth the highly active waste heats up the surrounding rock to around 850 degrees Celsius. That is hot enough partially to melt the rock within a period of a few days. That process is followed by slow cooling—which is important to provide the right kind of structure—and crystallisation of the rock over a period of years. The container and its waste becomes entombed in a "sarcophagus of solid crystalline granite". It is important to note that at these depths any fluids in the rock do not interact chemically or physically with the groundwater, which is in the top 700 metres of the earth's crust. In principle, that approach could deal with high-level and low-level radioactive waste, as well as with plutonium, should that be declared a waste material. The concept has been demonstrated to work in the laboratory, simulating the pressures that are to be found at a depth of five kilometres. It also happens that at those depths there are large areas of the earth's land surface that have suitable granitic structures so that the siting of the boreholes is not so restrictive. I am well aware that that is not the phased approach recommended by the committee. However, one should keep an open mind in the light of further research.
Much more work remains to be done on such matters as container materials and on fluid circulation at those depths. Nevertheless, the concept of dispersal in very deep boreholes seems an ideal solution for dealing with spent nuclear fuel. As Dr Gibb says,
"Putting it back into the earth's crust—even deeper than where it came from—is probably the next best thing to never having dug it up in the first place".
We need to fund more ideas of that kind to deal with a problem that could have tragic consequences if it is left unsolved.
1.35 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is a double pleasure for me to wind up this debate on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches. My first reaction is one of huge pleasure to be debating the subject again with so many noble Lords who are my former colleagues, from the days when I had the great privilege of serving on the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I have long felt that my time on that committee was the most useful that I have spent in this House.
It is a particular pleasure to add my welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. He introduced a perspective on the subject that I had not previously heard. Indeed, he was the only speaker to touch on the physiological aspects of the body's reaction to radiation. That is an important consideration. His remarks added to the contents of the report and I regard them as a great bonus.
518
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, may not be in this House for much longer. We on these Benches regret the passing of a number of colleagues at this time. There are many faces that we shall all miss.
The Minister's has also become a familiar face over the past few weeks and in the weeks leading up to the Recess. It is in a sense a pleasure to see him in his place waiting to reply to the debate. I look forward to his remarks.
The failure of the planning application for the rock characterisation facility at Sellafield brings us full circle. I found myself with a feeling of déjá vu as I read the report. I imagine that the feeling was common to many who had to deal with the report. Certainly the state of knowledge has developed since the initial actions undertaken by Nirex which led to that planning application. We know a great deal more today about the scale of the problem. But the problem was there in the 1970s and early 1980s when I was a consultee. Possibilities in my county were suggested. I also had to deal with the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster as they affected local government quite dramatically in certain areas of this country. So I am not wholly unfamiliar with the risks of the nuclear industry.
My first comment relates to an important point touched on by the committee regarding the implications of the refusal for the planning process. I do not intend to go into the report's contents in detail. The House will delighted to hear that I intend merely to touch on two or three subjects. They are largely non-scientific, but are none the less important for that.
There has long been concern about the planning problems for applications involving major national infrastructure. Serious questions have been raised as to whether the conventional planning process is adequate to deal with such applications. The suggestion in the report that the parliamentary process should be involved in these matters to a much greater extent seems to me to be worth while and one that I hope that the Government will consider seriously. I do not say that because the planning process is inappropriate. However, when one is dealing with matters that perforce involve national policy there must be some way to involve the parliamentary process. Further, for the sake of everybody, public inquiries into applications of this nature need to be rather better focused than is the case under existing practice.
My second point concerns risk. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers, and other noble Lords have touched on this matter. All risk is relative. When one deals with these particular matters one does not consider the risk of one solution versus a second or third solution; one is also concerned with the risk of any of those solutions versus the risk of doing nothing. If I have a marginal criticism of the report—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, will forgive me—it is that it could have said more about the risks involved in doing nothing. I am a life Peer and so am allowed to refer to some worthwhile matters handed down by my father. My father had an aphorism which is all too true in the present situation: there are always reasons why things should not be done. However, we are in a situation where things need to be done.

519
My third point concerns the need to build public knowledge and acceptability of the risks and the solutions. It does not matter how good is the science, the decision-making process or the politics if the public are not knowledge able about the subject. If the public understand the issues involved, when the point of decision arrives there is at any rate an inclination towards acceptance. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that not only must we trust the public, but that we can trust them. I found that intervention particularly pleasing. Unless we build public trust in matters of this kind, acknowledging all the difficulty involved, a solution to the problem is not possible. The need to carry the public all the way through the process is well spelt out in the report.
If I have one other worry about the report, it is that when I finished reading it I thought that perhaps it gave the Government the opportunity for prevarication. I read the report before I received the Government's response. Far be it from me to be cynical, but I believe that the response was generated more by the timing of this debate than any willingness to get on with the issue, which is regrettable. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond to the debate he will give an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government to prevaricate on this immensely important issue.
Two vital steps must be taken: first, the commencement of the process to build public acceptability. It is important that the Government do that. In so doing, I hope that they will clarify the risks involved, all the possible solutions and, most importantly, the risk inherent in doing nothing. Secondly, I hope that when the Minister replies he will give an assurance that the Green Paper referred to in the Government's response will arrive rather more promptly than did the Government's response to the report.
If this report is correct—we can reach conclusions only on the basis of the current state of knowledge and technology—we are looking for structures with a lifetime as long as 200 times that of the great pyramids. That is not only an interesting perspective but also an illustration of the significance of the problem. I welcome the report.
1.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and his committee for producing this report and all noble Lords who have participated in this extraordinarily well informed and, in my case, informative debate. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for his maiden speech in this House. I assure him that the points he makes have been received with considerable interest and will need to be considered in our whole approach to safety management. I also welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, who I am glad to see back in his place. For a long time he has provided a major
520
insight into this issue. His report in the 1970s was an early milestone in these considerations, none of which has yet been fully resolved.
I should like to place on record the Government's apology for the fact that it was not possible to produce the response before the Summer Recess. As many noble Lords have said, it was our intention originally to produce it earlier. However, it is an exceptionally difficult subject that merits consideration. Having apologised for the timescale of the response, I do not apologise for the content. It may be thin, as my noble friend Lord Winston said, but it is substantive. The response is not prevarication or procrastination. As the committee's own report indicated, it is a recognition of the need both to proceed cautiously and, above all, to consult and take experience and public support with us. I do not regard the response as procrastination but as a sensible recognition of the enormous problems involved, not least the problem of public acceptability.
It is plain from the evidence before the committee, the report itself and the Government's own assessment that there is an enormous amount of anxiety out there. It is also plain that whatever view is taken on the future role of nuclear power, nationally or globally, we already have a problem in addition to any that may result from future decisions. We must put the problem into perspective. I have some sympathy for the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, in trying to grasp the size of the problem. I can tell him that at the last annual count the total amount of high level and intermediate level waste was 71,000 cubic metres. That is probably a concept he understands better than a becquerel—and a becquerel measures radiological impact, not volume. It is therefore not a huge volume, and only 2.3 per cent is the high-level waste. Nevertheless, the problem is of long-term, immense importance, as many noble Lords have said.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, my noble friend Lord Winston and many others pointed out, an important aspect is public anxiety not only in the UK but elsewhere. Perhaps I misunderstood the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his suggestion that political reality was not a reality. In this case, it is a reality with which we must deal in taking decisions on these matters. The anxieties are not originated by the green organisations. Perhaps on occasions, there are distortions, but there are deep anxieties among ordinary people.
That spills over into wider debates about the perception of risk, and government and other leaders of opinion attempt to assess various risks. Many noble Lords have tempted me into that area, including the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I am glad to be debating another subject rather than the GLA Bill! Such wider debates are for another day. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has an inquiry on the public's perception. It will be intriguing and important for your Lordships to consider.
There are deeply held views on the issue. On the one hand, there are those who are convinced that intermediate and high-level waste should be disposed

521
of in an engineered repository deep underground. They are committed to that. On the other hand, there are those who are not persuaded that we know enough about what will happen to radionuclides disposed of in this way over the long period that they would remain hazardous. In their view, while this uncertainty remains the waste should continue to be stored on the surface in properly constructed stores.
There are not many options. As the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, indicated, sea disposal is not an option and rightly so. The previous administration considered that radioactive waste should be disposed underground and Nirex was charged with finding a suitable site. But efforts to obtain approval for a rock characterisation facility near Sellafield were proceeded with too hastily. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the fact that insufficient attention had been paid to the need to achieve consensus either on the principle of deep disposal or on the choice of location. It is not surprising therefore that so much opposition was mounted to the proposals.
There is local and national public opinion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, pointed out. Some of that public opinion manifests itself through the planning process, to which the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred, and we are taking steps to improve it. But there are planning considerations even after a clear option has been reached.
I was pleased to see the Select Committee recommend so clearly that we need to take time to build a consensus for whatever option is chosen in the long term. In the Government's response, we have wholeheartedly accepted that recommendation. We are currently preparing the consultation paper which will invite views on the approach that should be adopted in the long-term management of radioactive waste. We aim to publish that in the spring of next year. That is our timetable.
We also agree with the Select Committee that the policy on radioactive waste management needs to be fully comprehensive. Nirex's plans for a deep repository during the previous administration covered only intermediate-level waste. Decisions on long-term management need to cover high-level waste as well. The Government have just published the results of a study carried out by the company, Quantisci, which was a government research strategy for high-level waste. The Government also need to consider the Sheffield work, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred, on deep borehole solutions.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, mentioned, we also need to take account of military wastes. The Government are in favour of bringing military wastes under the civilian regulatory regime, provided that security and operational effectiveness can be guaranteed. The forthcoming consultation paper will therefore also seek views on the extension of the civilian regime to MoD sites.
Despite the Select Committee's emphasis on the need for full consultations, it opted heavily for its preference for phased geological disposal. It also
522
recommended that wastes disposed of deep underground should be monitorable and retrievable. The Government views the committee's report and recommendation in this respect as the first steps in the consensus-building process. Therefore, it would be wrong for the Government to come to a decision on their preferred option. Nevertheless, it would be right to say that if eventually deep disposal were considered to be the right choice, we would regard monitorability and retrievability as important components of that decision.
The Government have therefore acknowledged that deep disposal may indeed be the only solution. However, I cannot stress too strongly that consultations must first take place. In particular, if disposal is to be the preferred solution, timing will also be a crucial issue.
The Select Committee concluded that a deep repository would be needed in about 2050. If deep disposal is to be the chosen option, the Government agree that this would be about the right target date. As the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, indicated, it is necessary to grasp the nettle somewhat before that. If a decision were to be taken to construct a deep repository, it would take 30 to 40 years from the time of that decision to the disposal of the first waste. Therefore, although 2050 is a long way off, it will not be long before decisions need to be taken on whether we wish to pursue that course. The Select Committee is right, therefore, to emphasise that progress needs to be made. But we have time to consider these difficult issues and therefore there is time for consultation and for bringing the people with you.
As several noble Lords indicated, the most difficult issue of all—assuming that a repository is considered the right solution—is that of site selection. For those outside this House, I need to be clear about the issue and say categorically today that no work is currently taking place on any potential sites. If the time comes when investigations need to start again, that would need to be on the basis of full consultation over the criteria to be adopted for the sites and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, indicated, for local openness and early consultation.
The noble Baroness, the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, supported the Select Committee's recommendation of establishing a nuclear waste management commission to oversee the implementation of policy. The Government do not consider that the setting up of a new body at this stage would be beneficial during the early stage of consensus building. It could even be counter-productive. In the forthcoming consultation, the Government will be seeking views on the possibility of such an institution or of other institutions to implement and oversee the policy.
In that context, there is also the recommendation that Nirex's role should be taken over by the proposed new commission and disposal company. The noble Lords, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Cavendish, referred to the role of Nirex. The Government consider that Nirex should continue the generic research it is

523
currently undertaking and continue to advise the nuclear industry on the packaging of radioactive waste. The Government are also consulting on other aspects of the planning process, as I have indicated.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and others raised the issue of the multiplicity of government institutions involved. It is not quite as complex as he indicated. The committee's main recommendation was that the Environment Agency should be given statutory power over the storage of waste at nuclear licensed sites. Currently, the HSE is responsible for the safe regulation of these wastes, but its memorandum of understanding with the Environment Agency ensures that the agency's point of view is taken on board. On the wider issue of the number of government departments and institutions involved, I can confirm that my department, the DETR, is in the lead on radioactive waste management, but it is necessary to consult other interested departments as well as the devolved organisations.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, also referred to future decisions on importation and reprocessing. The Government are still considering the scope of the consultation on radioactive waste management. They have not yet made a final decision on the review. The reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel from both foreign and UK reactors is carried out in full compliance with all domestic and international regulations. There is only very rarely approval to import licensing. There are a number of decisions to be taken in that respect, as there are in relation to MOX which was also referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig. As your Lordships may know, a consultation exercise was carried out over the summer into the economic case for the MOX plant. The responses to hat are being analysed and announcements will be made about those applications as soon as that process is complete.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, and the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, referred to the international dimension, both in terms of other countries facing similar problems and the need for co-ordination. The UK has a good record for participating in such discussions but at the start of deciding what our option is, it is probably inappropriate at this stage to take a new initiative in international disposals. Nevertheless, we would wish to join in the overall international activity on this front.
With regard to the particular point in relation to European facilities raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on the disposal of obsolete joint research centre nuclear facilities, it is the case that member countries are being consulted on the decommissioning of these facilities. The Government's concern has been to ensure that the Commission draws up a robust, properly-researched and costed plan for dealing with this.
Going back to the institutional element, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and others, raised the question of devolution. The Government's response, outlined
524
today, has already been agreed with the devolved administrations which have a role in this matter. It refers to the fact that part of the Select Committee's report covers some issues which are reserved and others which are devolved. The response also confirms that terms of response have been agreed with those administrations. Clearly, when decisions need to be taken on a long-term management of radioactive waste, there will also need to be consultations with devolved administrations.
The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, raised the issue of synthetic titanium rocks, ceramic rock and the work of Synroc Limited. As I understand it, the noble Earl is aware that Synroc has yet to demonstrate the viability of disposal of large volumes of radioactive waste. Nevertheless, the department and the nuclear authorities welcome being kept in touch with these new technologies and also the technology, mentioned by the noble Earl, of transmutation through accelerators for plutonium. We are keeping in touch with developments on all those fronts.
This is a very complex and difficult area. The views expressed during today's debate reflect great experience from various dimensions of the nuclear industry. I myself, although possessing no degree of experience of the industry, share some of the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, about how this is made clear to the public we are about to consult.
I have at various stages in my life had dealings with the nuclear industry. In the 1960s I worked at AEI, Harwell when there was great enthusiasm for nuclear power as the salvation of many of our ills. Indeed, in one sense, at that time nuclear power was seen as the green option for the future. But there were even then doubts about its economics and safety. Along with my noble friend Lord Burlison, I represented the trade union membership which was very much based in Sellafield, with its big interest in the nuclear power industry and economic and employment prospects in the county of Cumbria. There were also safety problems to be addressed. This balance between safety considerations and the undoubted benefit which nuclear power could bring is always there.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, I do pay a subscription to Friends of the Earth. It does not mean I necessarily agree with all their policies. I pay a subscription to the Labour Party as well.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Whitty: From time to time one disagrees. I personally believe that whatever the share of nuclear power in Britain's energy generation, the world probably needs nuclear power and it is therefore important to get these questions right. Since the end of July, I have taken dual responsibility in this area. I am responsible for the Health and Safety Executive within my department, but I am also responsible, with my colleague Michael Meacher, for the climate change dimension. I believe that nuclear power has a serious role to play and that decisions on nuclear power will be important in getting those

525
very difficult equations right. The safety issue, the contribution to the planet's future energy needs, are all involved here.
In the light of that, it is probably sensible for us to be a little cautious and perhaps a little considered in our response to what is an immensely valuable piece of work by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, and everyone involved in the committee. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that at the appropriate point there will be proper parliamentary consideration of these issues. I have no doubt that as background to that, whenever it comes, this report will play a major part. I would like once again to thank the committee and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, since I did give written notice of this question I would be most grateful if he could be more explicit about the nature of the consultation between the Government and the devolved administrations. Can he say whether or not the statement, which I quoted briefly from the introduction to the paper, would be regarded by the devolved administrations as firmly placing their name on that reply? It is very important at this stage of devolution that we should establish what the nature of these processes are, how they can be facilitated, and how there can be unified approach to these problems.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought I had made it clear that, so far as devolution is concerned, the devolved assemblies have been fully consulted over this report and are therefore party to it. Clearly, future regulatory requirements and the relationship of any new organisations in this field, were we to pursue the committee's option, would need to be discussed and implemented via, in some respects, the devolved administrations. And, of course, already in Scotland the Scottish Executive and Parliament have the oversight of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency which is one of the major institutions already in this area. There is agreement with the devolved administrations and any forward movement would have to be taken with their agreement.
2.7 p.m.
Lord Tombs: My Lords, we have had a long but comprehensive and useful debate on a subject of great importance to present and future generations. I should like to express my thanks to all the speakers who took part and to those noble Lords who did not take part but listened with great patience.
The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, made a distinguished and authoritative maiden speech to which many other noble Lords referred with justified admiration. As a long inhabitant of this field, I would observe that very cautious assumptions were made at the beginning of the nuclear process which have survived despite a growing amount of evidence that they are cautious. So I think that the suggestion for a review is extremely timely.
526
I should like to pick out one or two individual contributions. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, drew attention to the fate of past reports, which seem to have a great facility for attracting dust. I hope that this does not prove to be one of them, though I am perhaps less convinced than I sound. The noble Earl mentioned, too, that he had wanted to import the devolutionary problem or mechanism into the report. At that time I took the view that that would probably produce a problem of similar complexity to the one we set out to examine. It may be that the time-scale of the response, to which I shall return later, supports that view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, made a very penetrating remark that policy does not invent itself. There is a need for leadership in policy. That is a fine balance, of which we were conscious throughout the committee's deliberations—the balance between consulting in an open way and appearing to pre-empt a decision. It is a problem which has obviously troubled the Government and they have come down perhaps rather more in one direction than I would have considered desirable. But I shall say more about that in a moment.
The noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, described himself, I think unfairly, as an amateur. Even if he were, the position of amateurs is very important in this debate. It cannot be left to experts alone because the public generally tend to want to be involved in some way which is not wholly professional. Had he gone on to look beyond terabecquerel to becquerel, he would have found it defined there as one nuclear disintegration per second; and that is a very small amount—hence the use of powers to reach anything of importance. However, in relation to the noble Earl's comments, there is an inverse relationship between the radioactive inventory and the volume of the product involved. One cannot generalise from a radioactive inventory to the size of a repository. Disused coalmines are not likely to be very useful to us. A requirement for a deep geological repository is a stable body of rock. That is almost ruled out by moving chunks of the rock in the course of exploration. Most of our coalmines are in any case very heavily faulted.
Perhaps I may take up the rather distressing criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. He felt that we had not spelled out the risk of doing nothing. I thought that we had. I quote two points from the executive summary alone. Point II states:
"The problem exists and has to be solved".
Point IV states:
"The long time-scales involved might be thought to be a reason for postponing decisions. The contrary is the case, since existing storage arrangements have a limited life and will require replacement, and eventually the repackaging and transfer of stored waste. Reliance on supervision for very long periods increases the probability of human error".
Both of those observations are spelled out at length in Chapters 2 and 3 of the report.
Perhaps I may turn to the Minister's response and to the published response of the Government. I said in my opening remarks that I welcomed it. That was more from a sense of relief after the series of false

527
dawns, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred. The report accepts the general thrust but proposes an earlier stage of consultation on the methodology—a further consultation. That seems to be not so much taking the first step on a long journey, which is important, but talking to others about how one might be able to take the first step on a long road. I found that somewhat disappointing. In some ways it reflects much of the tone of the report. I shall come back to that point.
It is not easy to understand why it took more than seven months to prepare the report given what amounts to its very general content. I hope that this leisurely pace will not characterise future actions on this important topic. I am very much afraid that it may, particularly in view of the oblique comments made in the report to the consultation of other assemblies. Perhaps we will have a very long discussion about how it might proceed rather when it can start.
Of major importance and something which may offer some amelioration of that essential or inherent delay was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. I had it on my list as an important mechanistic route. We recommended that the national waste management commission could be set up at an early stage to organise the method of consultation and the basis of consultation long before it became statutory and inherited the duties described in the report. That would offer a way of taking the issue away from governments who are essentially transient in their nature and, it would seem, complicated and somewhat—I was about to say "dilatory" but perhaps that is not the right word—casual in approaching a matter of great urgency.
Perhaps I may make one or two comments on particular responses to recommendations. I was disappointed that in response to recommendation 11, the Government are reluctant to contemplate a leading role for UK organisations even, as we suggested—and this is an important caveat—when public consultation is complete and if the chosen policy is geological disposal. That is quite a constrained recommendation. I found the rejection of that to be regrettably timid.
The response to recommendation 12 on the issue of plutonium as waste seems rather confused, perhaps reflecting divergent departmental interests. It appears to miss the point that a decision on this matter would influence the physical size of the problem that must be addressed and hints at a solution. The response expresses a welcome intention to keep the committee informed of future developments and a willingness to welcome further scrutiny and comments as matters develop. Noble Lords will know that at the end of an inquiry the committee is wound up and its staff dispersed so that the aim, though gratifying, may be difficult to realise in practice. Nevertheless, I shall be happy to give any help that I can, and I am sure other members of the committee will say the same on an individual basis. Furthermore, I can promise the Minister that, irrespective of any invitation, we shall take every opportunity to harry the Government through Questions
528
I have greatly enjoyed both the chairmanship of the committee and the debate that has followed. We have exposed the issues and I look forward to more positive action from the Government, first, in involving the public to a greater extent and, secondly, in offering their lead on the matter. I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing and Registered Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1999
2.15 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the Licensing and Registered Clubs (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 is to allow licensed premises other than off-licences and registered clubs to stay open for the sale or supply of alcohol throughout the night of the millennium New Year's Eve. This is a one-off relaxation of the permitted hours of drinking and is similar to that allowed for England and Wales. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton.)
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I have only one question. Will the provisions outlined here be similar to those on the mainland? The noble Baroness has assured us that that is the case. We support the order and we hope that those who benefit from the advantages of the order, which is of very short duration, will act responsibly.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we also support the order from these Benches. I believe that the problem will not be the number of off-licences and pubs that stay open all night, but the large number that will probably plan to close early.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) (Termination of Restrictions) Order 1999
2.17 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order has already been approved in another place. It seeks to introduce on a permanent basis throughout Great Britain a scheme to provide an incentive for drink-drive offenders to attend courses the purpose of which

529
is to persuade them not to reoffend. If they complete the course satisfactorily, the period of disqualification from driving will be reduced by up to one-quarter.
The scheme has been running in certain designated court areas on an experimental basis since 1993. The experiment was first proposed as long ago as 1988 in the review of road traffic law chaired by Dr Peter North. Since 1993 a number of different organisations have been running courses on a self-financing basis, including issuing of fees to be paid by offenders. A typical course is organised into sessions lasting for between two and four hours per week for a period of eight to 10 weeks.
Monitoring of the courses by the Transport Research Laboratory has involved tracking three groups of drink-drive offenders convicted between 1993 and July 1996. Those groups comprise: first, those who attended an experimental rehabilitation course; secondly, those who did not although they were convicted in designated courts; and, thirdly, those convicted at 18 control courts where rehabilitation courses were not available. Researchers looked at the proportion of offenders who were reconvicted within a three-year period as the main measure of the effectiveness of the courses. The results suggested that those who attend a rehabilitation course are three times—I repeat, three times—less likely to reoffend than those who do not.
We therefore propose a permanent rehabilitation scheme operating throughout Great Britain as that may play an important role in our long-term campaign to reduce drink-drive casualties and the rate of drink-drive offending. I hope that the order will be supported. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Viscount Simon: My Lords, as my noble friend has said, these courses to rehabilitate drink-drive offenders have been very successful, resulting in a lower level of reoffending. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate everyone involved in running the courses.
I ask only one question of my noble friend: is the monitoring of those who take these courses to continue? I hope so. I am pleased to support the formalisation of this experimental order.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to say—as indeed I did when I spoke to the original draft order—that the provision of these options for those convicted of drink-driving is very welcome. However, we on these Benches, and myself in particular, as a deputy chairman of the All-Party Group on Alcohol Misuse, are concerned about the information that is coming out on the assessment of those convicted, in terms of their drinking history. I refer to male drinkers between the ages of 16 and 24, who in relation to the social costs of drinking in
530
this country are always viewed as a particularly active group of likely offenders, and to those whom one might term "addicts".
We should like to know whether there is any information so far relating to the effect of the scheme on those two groups. I take it that what the Minister said, and the welcome statistic that he gave on the reduction in offending, probably relates to the former group that I mentioned rather than to those identified as having a long-term drink problem, but I may be wrong. Perhaps in his closing remarks the Minister will be able to throw some light on that matter.
I conclude by saying that this is a welcome development which I fully support. I hope that in the future we shall gather more information and statistics on which we may base future action to help those with such problems.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, it is always a pleasure when experiments such as this prove successful. As a magistrate, it seems to me a sound and sensible provision to give courts the discretion to order someone convicted of drink-driving to attend a rehabilitation course. We on these Benches support this scheme, and we hope that it will go from strength to strength.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I greatly appreciate the support from all around the House for these measures and for the rolling-out of the scheme nationally. In response to the question of my noble friend Lord Simon, I assure him that when the permanent scheme is established we shall be conducting further research to evaluate best practice among the courses and to consider how the providers of those courses can continue to maintain high standards. We shall consider also how we may publicise the courses more widely and obtain more information on the nature of drink-driving offences.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, raised a good point about how we may categorise the different types of offender. It is not clear from the current statistics whether they can be divided precisely into the two types that he mentioned in terms of those who reoffend. That is something at which we shall be looking across the range of drivers. Of course, even addicts can change their behaviour in relation to their driving.
It may be of some consolation to the noble Viscount to know that the courses which we run are currently provided by a range of different bodies, including voluntary organisations in the alcohol rehabilitation field. Therefore, identified addicts' problems can be referred to other advisory services and hospitals by professionals. That is one of the many measures that we have taken in dealing with drink-drive problems which have brought the problem home in a small way so far but which will, we hope, do so in a greater way hereafter, to change the behaviour of drivers so that one-time offenders no longer offend.

531
We have had a substantial record in reducing the number of drink-drive fatalities and accidents over the past 10 years. This will be one more measure to improve that record. I thank your Lordships for your support. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Restriction of Exemption) Order 1999
2.25 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to improve protection for charities which invest in common investment funds. Common investment funds are unit trusts in which only charities may invest. They provide a means of investing which is simple and tax efficient. For smaller charities in particular, they enable funds to be invested more widely, while minimising risk.
At present, the trustees of common investment funds are exempt from the Financial Services Act 1986 and are therefore not regulated in the same way as other unit trusts. As charities, common investment funds are regulated by the Charity Commission. In 1996 the Treasury and the Charity Commission jointly consulted on the future regulation and structure of common investment funds. The Government are grateful to all who responded. Respondents generally supported the policy aims to strengthen regulation and increase investor protection.
Following consultation, it was concluded that it was necessary to strike a balance between the need for greater regulation and the desire to keep the costs of management and compliance as low as possible. That could be done by removing the exemption for the trustees of common investment funds.
In future any trustees who carry out investment business which is regulated under the Financial Services Act will need to be authorised by IMRO (the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation) and must comply with their rules and codes of conduct. The change will enable the common investment funds to be regulated as part of the financial services industry. That benefits charities by providing additional reassurance that those responsible for the funds comply with rules and regulations established for investment business. Charities which invest in common investment funds will also become eligible for compensation for the first time under the investors' compensation scheme.
Since the proposed change was announced last year, common investment funds have been considering what changes they should make to enable them to comply with the proposed changes in legislation. Many of them propose to restructure. At the request of the financial services industry, the order contains a transitional period to enable common investment funds which are restructuring to
532
do so at their half-year evaluation date. That makes the process simpler and cheaper. An economical transition will benefit the charities which invest in common investment funds. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27th July be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, this order is complicated and technical but it is of great importance within the charity sector. I should declare an interest as a solicitor whose firm acts for a number of the charities which will be affected by this order, and in particular the Charities Aid Foundation.
Over the years, some of the charities concerned have established common investment funds for the reasons clearly set out by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Some of them now take the view that the removal of exemption from the trustees of the existing common investment funds will place the funds concerned in a problematic position. Some have decided that the better course is not to restructure so as to comply with the Financial Services Act under the aegis of IMRO but rather to set up OEICs (open-ended investment companies). For various reasons which it is not appropriate to explain here, some charities are of the opinion that the OEICs offer better scope and prospects for their investors.
As the noble Lord pointed out, the common investment fund is a particularly advantageous beast for small charities with relatively small funds. Such charities would otherwise not receive wholesale rates and would not have the advantage of best management. Secondly—this is really the point of my intervention—the fund is of particular advantage to those charities which have only a narrow constitutional right of investment; that is, a right of investment confined to the provisions of the Trustee Investments Act 1961 as amended.
As many of your Lordships will know, the statutory limitation requires that at least a quarter of the portfolio of the charities within the 1961 Act has to be invested in what are called "narrow range investments", which are generally thought to be disadvantageous in the modern investment world.
The problem is that OEICs do not have the particular advantage currently enjoyed by the common investment fund which, in effect, allows charities with whatever investment powers to invest in them without restriction. That will not be true of OEICs. Therefore, those common investment funds which wish to transmogrify into OEICs rather than restructure so as to comply with the new regime, might well find themselves caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.
The Government have, quite rightly, listened to representations and provided a six-month transitional period. However, the likelihood is that that will not be long enough to see the existing trustee investment legislation changed so as to allow small charities with limited investment powers to transfer their funds from the existing common investment funds into OEICs.

533
There is in existence a Trustee Bill drafted by the Law Commission and largely promoted by the Association of Charitable Foundations. That Bill overcomes this technical problem, which, in effect, if passed will eliminate the 25 per cent narrow range band of investments.

I apologise for winding so gradually up to the question. I did so because otherwise it would make absolutely no sense to the uninitiated. I am not sure that it makes much sense now. Can the Minister give any guidance and assistance to those within the charity sector who are now having to make up their minds as to what to do? Plainly, those that want to transfer to OEICs would much prefer to be able to do so in one fell swoop. They would prefer to move from the common investment funds they now are into the OEICs they wish to become.
The worst of all worlds would be a situation where the new Trustee Bill is not brought before Parliament in time for it to pass into law within the six-month transitional period. It would thus leave those concerned having to obtain the new certification under the new regime. That is an extremely expensive and laborious business. It is expensive not only to the charities and hence to those who invest in them, but also to IMRO. There are a number of novelties in this group of investment funds which may want to become registered under the new regime.
Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will consider bringing before Parliament, very soon, the Law Commission's Trustee Bill? That, in turn, would enable the trustee investment regime to be altered early enough to avoid the interregnum which would otherwise have to exist and which would cause cost, expense and inconvenience to all concerned.
Finally, perhaps I may make an observation on a separate, drafting point. Paragraph 1(2)(c) defines the pooling scheme fund. It states at the end that it is only a pooling scheme fund under this order where the property concerned is transferred into that fund by or on behalf of a charity whose trustees are the trustees appointed to manage the fund.
My question is simple. Is that wording intended to restrict the charity trustees referred to from appointing professional investment managers, as is the current practice? I am sure it is not. It would be wholly counter-productive to prevent the charity trustees of such pooling schemes from being able to appoint investment managers. However, given some of the past uncertainties, it would help if the Minister were able to say that my interpretation—namely, that they can appoint investment managers—is correct.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, we on these Benches believe that this order is not controversial and has been widely circulated. We are therefore content to support it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, declared an interest, and I suppose that I should have declared an indirect, non-financial interest as my wife is a trustee of the Charities Aid Foundation and, until three years ago, was trustee of the two common investment funds which it operates. She is no longer, since it restricted the trusteeship of those funds.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, from his great knowledge of this area, raises a number of interesting points. I am sorry to have to say at the outset that there is no slot for the Law Commission's Trustee Bill at the moment. But the Lord Chancellor is keen on pushing forward Law Commission Bills, as the noble Lord will recognise, and I hope that we shall be able to get it on to the statute book, after due parliamentary consideration, as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised specific questions about the transitional arrangements and those common investment funds which choose to go in the direction of being open-ended investment companies rather than adopting the restructuring, as will most of the funds. Nothing in the order affects the ability of organisations to establish open-ended investment companies. The order follows extensive discussion with those who have been involved. The policy was announced in September 1998 and those who wanted to do so should have made a start on it before now. Including the 13-month period between September 1998 and now, and the transitional period provided in the order, all those involved will have had between 14 and 20 months to prepare for it. If there are any specific difficulties which the noble Lord would like to draw to our attention, I am sure that we shall take account of them.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. It is a bit tough to say that they should have been preparing their OEICs during the consultation period. There was great uncertainty as to what would emerge from the consultation and only since the way the cookie is crumbling has become clear have OEICs become the preferred alternative.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that point. But since the order, as it emerges, is very much in line with what those who were consulted wanted, they could have anticipated to some extent that they would get what they wanted; we are not entirely unreasonable people. However, as I say, if there are specific difficulties, I am sure that the noble Lord will draw them to our attention.
The noble Lord made a second point about the trustees of pooling funds. I am happy to confirm that nothing in the draft order affects the ability of trustees of pooling funds to appoint investment managers. I hope therefore that the House will see fit to approve the order.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, as other noble Lords who have spoken declared an interest, perhaps I should do so also. I am chairman of the trustees

535
of Nuffield Hospital Pension Fund. I do not know whether or not that is relevant, but I felt I ought to make that declaration.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, unless they use a common investment fund, it is not a relevant declaration. However, I a m grateful to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 (Amendment) Order 1999
2.39 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this order is to amend the schedule to the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977. That schedule prescribes the number of members of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council and how they are to be chosen. When the Act was passed, it was anticipated that the original provisions might he changed, and there are powers to amend those provisions.
Why is it necessary to amend the schedule? The House will be aware that the Government are currently making progress through Standing Committee in the other place with the Financial Services and Markets Bill. The thrust of that Bill is to create a single statutory regulator for the financial services sector. Last year, before the Bill was introduced and having consulted interested parties, the Government decided that, as regards the distribution of general insurance as opposed to long-term life insurance, statutory regulation might not be appropriate. It is a matter of balancing the costs and rigidities of statutory regulation against the requirements of consumers for adequate protection. The Government's view, and that of many who replied to the consultation, is that the case for statutory regulation was not proved.
However, there is genuine concern about the need for high standards of business conduct and propriety among those businesses which distribute general insurance. The former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Helen Liddell, announced in July 1998 that the Treasury would look to the insurance industry and general insurance intermediaries to work together and devise an effective non-statutory means of promoting high standards of conduct. Progress in forming a general insurance standards council has been very encouraging so far. It is hoped that all those businesses which have gained Financially from the distribution of general insurance will respond positively to the challenge of self-discipline.
We intend to repeal the existing statutory regulation in the field of general insurance distribution; that is, we propose to take powers in the Financial Services and Markets Bill to repeal the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977, which sets up a council, charges it with carrying out certain functions and provides that those persons who wish to trade as insurance brokers (whether sole traders, partnerships or bodies corporate) must register or be enrolled by the council. Registered brokers must abide by rules set out by the council, which include a code of conduct, provisions regarding professional indemnity insurance and requirements as to financial adequacy, accounts and statements.
It is an offence to trade as an insurance broker without being registered. The costs incurred by the council are met from fees and there is no public funding. However, until the Act is repealed, the council remains answerable for the discharge of its statutory functions. Given the expectation of its being wound up, it is reasonable that the approach of the council should now be one of active care and maintenance. The changes proposed are intended to help the council conduct affairs in that fashion.
As I said, the schedule to the Act prescribes the size of the council, the number of its members and how they are to be chosen. The proposals in the order, which the House is now considering, will reduce the size of the council from 17 members to 10—six members of the current council who have been elected and four nominated by the Treasury—who will then serve until the council is wound up. However, as a contingency measure, the proposals also allow the Treasury, at the request of the council, to fill a casual vacancy should the council decide, in the light of its current situation, that to hold an election to fill such a vacancy would be wasteful of resources.
The Treasury will then make a further order, which will be subject to annulment—in other words. to the negative procedure—to replace the existing requirements as to elected members of the council with simpler requirements. It seems unlikely that the new election scheme will be activated, but the Treasury wishes to provide for that to happen just in case winding-up takes longer than expected. The original intention was that a majority of members of the council should be elected from the broker community. These proposals are designed to ensure that that intention is respected.
Finally, I should like to assure the House that, in accordance with the existing schedule—much of which will remain in place—the council has been consulted on this draft and on the other order to which I referred. I am pleased to tell the House that council and Treasury officials have worked closely together in developing these proposals. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Newby: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Motion. However, I have just one question

537
for the Minister. It relates to Article 2(1)(b) of the order. It states that the Treasury is appointing four persons to the council, one of whom,
"shall be a barrister, advocate or solicitor".
There is then a wonderful piece of "Sir Humphrey" language, which says that one of the persons might or might not be an accountant and one of the others might or might not represent the interests of policyholders of insurance companies. Therefore, as there is certainty that one of these nominated people "shall" be a lawyer, should there not be equal certainty as regards having on the council an accountant and someone who can represent policyholders?
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the purpose of this statutory instrument. We on these Benches have no particular problems with the order. As a generality there is consensus that the statutory status of the IBRC—albeit that it will effectively operate in limbo—should be ended, but that before its abolition the council should continue to be subject to efficient administration. However, I have a question for the noble Lord. Is not the problem of statutorily required appointments to the IBRC a problem of the Government's own making?
Having sought—albeit subject to the decision of another place and the usual channels—to subject the Financial Services and Markets Bill to the procedure of carry over, such anomalies as that thrown up by this order were bound to occur. That being so, will the Government in any future use of the carry over procedure do their utmost to ensure that these kinds of problems either do not arise or are ironed out before the event?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is not a lawyer and therefore I can make the following comment without fear of causing offence. We understand that it is always possible to find lawyers to serve on these bodies but it is not always possible to find accountants. That is the reason why the provision for accountants and for policy holder representatives is slightly more flexible. I doubt whether it will make any difference in practice.
Without accepting the noble Baroness's strictures about past policies, I give her the assurance she wants about consultation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseeker's Allowance Amendment (New Deal) Regulations 1999
2.46 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone)The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone) rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I wish to speak also to the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Jobseeker's Allowance Amendment (New Deal) Regulations will help to open up the current New Deal education and training opportunities to a broader range of long-term unemployed jobseekers. Currently, the JSA regulations provide that people aged 25 and over who have been in receipt of JSA for a two-year qualifying period may be treated as available for and actively seeking employment while they undertake an education and training opportunity. We propose to provide for periods in receipt of National Insurance contribution credits only, as an unemployed person, or autocredits for those aged 60 to 64, to count towards the two-year qualifying period. These amendments will ensure more consistent treatment across long-term unemployed jobseekers and will enable more people to benefit from the support which is on offer to help them get into work.
The Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations serve three purposes. First, they correct a defect in the current regulations and ensure that people in receipt of incapacity benefit who are found capable of work by the All Work Test, are able to move smoothly onto JSA. The decision disentitling a person to incapacity benefit is effective from the day on which it is made, but the notification may take several days to reach the claimant. The claims and payments regulations currently allow the Secretary of State to backdate a JSA claim to the day after the final day of incapacity benefit. However, the JSA claim for that period is still likely to fail because the claimant was not available or actively seeking employment, since he did not know he should have been. The amendment regulations provide that the claimant may be treated as satisfying the labour market conditions in JSA for the period covered by the administrative backdating.
Secondly, the regulations correct another defect and, in doing so, make sure, as originally intended, that prisoners who are released from detention and then claim JSA are given a short period to readjust to normal life. The regulations provide that ex-prisoners shall be treated as actively seeking employment during the period of up to six days at the start of their claim, before the beginning of their first full benefit week.
Thirdly, these regulations make a technical amendment which is necessary as a result of the mergers since 1994 of certain training and enterprise councils with chambers of commerce to form chambers of commerce, training and enterprise. These regulations allow us to put right defects in the current rules. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseeker's Allowance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1999
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move formally the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21st October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (New Deal Pilot) Regulations 1999
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I propose to seek your Lordships' approval for a further set of New Deal regulations. These will allow the pilots we introduced last November to continue. As many noble Lords will know, under the Jobseekers Act, we have the power to introduce pilots by affirmative regulations, but those regulations may last for only a maximum of 12 months. The regulations we are debating today will renew those introduced last November and will come into force on 29th November 1999 and continue for a further 12 months.
I would like to explain briefly what we are trying to achieve with these pilots, their content and the progress we are making. The New Deal pilots for people aged 25 and over are an important part of our welfare-to-work strategy. We introduced the pilots in November 1998. They build on the existing national programme for people over 25, and are aimed at people who have been unemployed for 12 to 18 months. They provide a more intensive period of support designed to help people into employment and to improve their employability. We are testing new ways of helping unemployed people aged over 25 into work, in order to inform the future development of our support for this group.
When we introduced the pilots last year we made clear that we intended them to run for two years, with the last entrants in May 2000. Our policy intention is unchanged. These regulations simply renew those which were introduced last year to support the pilots and the amending measures which were introduced in April 1999 to allow pilot participants to begin setting themselves up in business while claiming jobseeker's allowance. A number of minor technical changes have been made to reflect the new arrangements for decision-making and appeals and for the introduction of the working family tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit. We have also added a transitional provision to ensure that participants fall within an uninterrupted regulatory framework.
Noble Lords may find it helpful if I expand further on the nature and scope of the current pilots.
There are 28 pilots across Great Britain and one covering the whole of Northern Ireland, which between them will help 90,000 people. They are aimed principally at people who have been unemployed for 18 months or more, but in some of the pilots we are testing the impact of offering that help earlier to those at, or beyond, the 12-month point of unemployment. In four areas we are also testing the effectiveness of allowing people at a particular disadvantage in the labour market earlier access to the pilots. The pilots are delivered by a variety of public and private sector organisations.
The design of the pilots is intended to allow for the widest possible scope for tailoring help to individual need and local circumstances. Pilot participants initially enter a gateway period of advisory support and other help to find work. Those who do not find work in this gateway period are then required to take part in intensive jobsearch alongside other activity; for example, work experience or job-focused training, for up to 13 weeks. During that time they will receive a grant of up to £200 paid over and above their JSA and other benefits. Those who do not find work by the end of this period are then offered further help in the follow-through period.
The renewing regulations I am proposing today support the pilots in a number of ways. They prescribe the categories of people who will be required to participate in the New Deal pilots, and the impact on their benefit of not participating. They ensure that the payments they may receive as part of a pilot, including self-employed earnings, will not affect their benefit.
It is still too early to be making any assessment of the impact the pilots are having. The Government have put in place an evaluation strategy which will measure the impact of the pilots on those participating in them compared with people outside the pilots. That comparison will enable us to judge the added value of the pilots but the main outputs from the evaluation will not be available until next year.
Our initial statistics indicate that up to the end of August over 54,000 people have entered the pilots and that at least 7,500 have already found work, while the majority is still benefiting from the intensive support that is available.
The number moving into work each month continues to grow. Those initial figures are encouraging but, as I said, the true test will be the proper evaluation. I believe that these pilots are crucial in helping us to determine the shape of future support for adult unemployed people. The regulations give us the power to continue with the pilots so that we have sufficient experience upon which to draw. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 21st October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("subject to an undertaking from Her Majesty's Government that the pilot study shall include a study of the outcomes for

541
those disentitled to benefit under Regulation 6, such study to include information on the means of support on which such people rely, on the proportion of those who six months later, are (a) employed, (b) unemployed, (c) in hospital and (d) in prison, and how these outcomes compare with those not so disentitled.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is always tempting to assume that business which comes before the House on a Friday is ipso facto unimportant. I must admit that I have occasionally given way to that temptation, but one must prove that one can occasionally resist temptation. That is why I have tabled an amendment to this Motion. I hope that it is in order for me to address, first, general questions about the regulations and then turn to the specific amendment.
The regulations which we are now renewing were last before us on 13th November 1998. In fact it seems that they will be a regular distraction for the ping-pong season. I asked then a number of questions to which I have not yet received answers. I hope that it is possible for the Minister now to provide answers to some of those questions.
First, why is there the introduction of sanctions for the over-25 group? There was no hint whatever in the Labour Party manifesto that any such thing was going to happen. As recently as 9th July 1998, a reply to my honourable friend Mr Keetch from the Secretary of State said that there was no such plan. The design document for the over-25s said that people will not be sanctioned for refusing the offer of a course. I asked a year ago what led to the decision to change that policy and introduce the sanctions. I should rather like an answer.
In DfEE News of 4th November 1998 it was stated that these programmes for the over-25s would offer the same high quality standards as for the under25s—despite the fact that an employment option for the under-25s was funded at the rate of £2,000 per person, but for the over-25s only at the rate of £1,300 per person. I conceded last year that it is perfectly possible by the most remarkable exercise in efficiency to match the quality of those two things at the different prices. I wanted to know how that was done. I still want to know. I want to know it rather more than I did previously in the light of a Written Answer given to my honourable friend Mrs Ballard the day before yesterday. It demonstrated an underspend of no less than 90 per cent on this programme; and that £103 million had been returned to the windfall tax reserve. That would seem to be carrying prudence to the point of recklessness.
No doubt we shall be told, as Tom Lehrer would have put it, that it turned out there was a reason. I should very much like to know what that reason may be. It calls for some explanation. I asked a year ago whether any training was available beyond 13 weeks. That question is again one to which I should still like an answer. I also wanted to know why the Government brought in sanctions before appeal in spite of all that the noble Baroness and her noble friends said about that before the election.
I now turn to what has happened since the election. I have figures provided by the unemployment unit—I regret to say that I have none from the Government—of the outcomes of those who have left the New Deal for over-25s so far. Some 8 per cent of them have gone to unsubsidised jobs—not a particularly distinguished figure; 6 per cent have gone to other benefits; 2 per cent to other known destinations; and 6 per cent unknown. I hope there is at least some curiosity within the department about what has happened to those who are unknown. To anticipate my amendment for a moment, I should like to know whether there is a correlation between those whose outcome is unknown and those who have received sanctions. That could be rather interesting information.
I also want to know what progress has been made with monitoring discrimination—which is in some cases an obstacle to re-entry into the labour market—whether on the grounds of race, gender, age or any other relevant criteria.
The purpose of my amendment is to ask the Government to monitor the outcomes of those who are sanctioned, who are disentitled to benefit in whole or in part, and to find out after six months what has happened to these people; whether they are unemployed, employed, in prison, in hospital or other outcome; and, if so, what. It also seeks to find out what means of subsistence are available to them during the period of disentitlement: whether they are being supported by family or friends; or, if not, how; whether there is a correlation between those who are able to turn to the support of a family group and those who are not; and, if there is such a correlation, whether we are penalising those who have suffered a family breakdown for a second time.
I want to know how many people who have been disentitled have subsequently had their disentitlement reversed on appeal. When I find that one of the commonest grounds for disentitlement is for refusing a Gateway interview, that makes me believe that we should have known the outcomes of those disentitlements before we considered the gateway clause to the Welfare Reform Bill, which left this House temporarily last week. It would have been very interesting to know what the effects were when we were discussing this matter. Clearly this information was discoverable.
There are two possible views of what the effect of disentitlement to benefit may be. The first, one might describe in shorthand as the short, sharp shock view; it brings people to their senses, makes them pull their socks up, and so on. One might argue that that way the effect is salutary. The other, negative, view is that it might tend to lead people into crime, into illness and into disappearing into the underclass. There is a great deal of hypothesis available in this area; it would be nice to have a little bit of fact as well. Obviously both those hypotheses are capable of being true in part. It would be nice to know which parts were the larger.
With the pilot scheme in front of us, we have an opportunity to use it, with a manageable sample of people, to collect that information and to use it to

543
inform future policy. One wants to know whether the ways in which people live while sanctioned affect the negative or positive outcome; whether those who have friends to rely on do better than those who have to scrounge. For example, one needs to know whether care leavers are more unfortunate after being disentitled than other people. One needs to know whether there is any correlation between disentitlement and the crime statistics. Noble Lords who were in the Chamber at Question Time yesterday will have noted that the Home Office Minister who was asked that question was entirely unable to provide an answer. We need a certain amount of joined-up government.
Also, anyone who reads the Acheson Report must be aware of the link between low income and ill health. One would like to monitor the extent of that link in regard to those who are disentitled to benefit. If the link exists with a benefit income because it is low, one might imagine that it might exist a fortiori with no benefit, which is even lower.
The Government set targets as regards suicides. Regrettably, there has been an increase in suicides among males, especially young males. Again, one would like to know whether that coincides with disentitlement to benefit. It might perfectly well not, but it would be nice to find out. It is in the hope that the Government may have a certain amount of laudable curiosity that I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert ("subject to an undertaking from Her Majesty's Government that the pilot study shall include a study of the outcomes for those disentitled to benefit under Regulation 6, such study to include information on the means of support on which such people rely, on the proportion of those who six months later are (a) employed, (b) unemployed, (c) in hospital and (d) in prison, and how these outcomes compare with those not so disentitled.").—(Earl Russell.)
3 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of the statutory instrument. What are the cost implications of the regulations and what consultation has taken place with interested parties; for example, with the Benefits Agency, the Employment Service and the New Deal partnerships'?
Much has been claimed for the New Deal, in our opinion much of it exaggerated. I and my colleagues in another place have serious reservations about the effectiveness of the New Deal scheme. As the noble Baroness will understand, we shall be vigilant in following up those reservations.
I was most interested to listen to the noble Earl's introduction of his amendment. We share his concern about the underspend. The reply referred to by the noble Earl suggested that it is the timing of the submission of invoices by the contractors—namely, for the year 1998–99—that caused some of the underspend. In that case, does the noble Baroness agree that the underspend should be very different now?
544
Also, it is stated that the numbers of people entering the New Deal programmes were lower than had been projected on the basis of the Government's unemployment assumption at that time. I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that we on these Benches predicted that. Is the noble Baroness able to tell the House how many participants in the New Deal have disappeared from the system without trace`' I look forward to her reply. In the meantime, as is the custom of this House, I shall not vote against the regulations.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness for their response to the regulations. As I have said, their purpose is to enable us to continue to test new and innovative ways of helping unemployed people aged 25 and over back into work, as both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness recognise.
I shall try to deal with the questions that have been put. The noble Earl asked about sanctions. The pilots are designed to offer individually tailored help to people to improve their employability and to help them back into work. It is therefore right to expect people who are unemployed to take advantage of the help that is provided. We want them to have a right to that help; but with that goes the responsibility for taking advantage of it. It cannot be right that people can claim JSA while not taking any steps to improve their employability and their prospects of finding work. People who refuse that offer of work and have no good cause for failing to take part in the pilots will lose their entitlement to JSA for two weeks in the first instance and for four weeks for any subsequent offence. However, they may be eligible for hardship payments. The noble Earl is aware that people in vulnerable groups, including those who have children and those who have health problems, have immediate access to hardship payments.
This is a national programme. The pilots contain rights but also responsibilities. Those in the New Deal who are over 25 are JSA claimants and therefore remain subject to conditions which contain sanctions if they unreasonably cause or perpetuate their unemployment. This is a long-standing feature of benefits for the unemployed. Sanctions are a deterrent to refusal to take up what we believe to be important and helpful support to unemployed people.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if we do not monitor the effect of sanctions how do we know that they are an effective deterrent?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the noble Earl anticipates my later comments. Perhaps I may turn to monitoring in a moment.
The noble Earl asked why the unit cost of the New Deal for those over 25 was lower than for young people. The options in the New Deal for Young People last at least six months, but the intensive activity periods in the pilots that we are discussing today last for three months. For that reason the costs are lower.

545
Evaluation will tell us whether the model that we are testing in these pilots is effective. That is the simple, straightforward explanation for the difference in cost.
The noble Earl also asked about underspend. Falls in unemployment have led directly to lower expenditure. To date, there has been a lower take-up of the subsidy. That also means lower expenditure. Measures such as the pilots will help us to make a greater number of people more employable and attractive to employers, and therefore they may not want to make use of the subsidies.
The noble Earl's next point was that the pilots did not provide enough education and training. It is important to remember that this is a different pilot client group from that comprising 18 to 24 year-olds. Many of the people in this group will already have skills and a lot of experience of work, but the pilots make provision for training to be delivered to meet individual needs. Training support can be available throughout the pilots. In addition, clients have the opportunity to study for up to one year while remaining on JSA. I hope that that provides the noble Earl with some reassurance.
The noble Earl asked whether these pilots had been successful so far. It is too early to judge their success. To make a sound assessment we need to monitor what happens to people who have benefited from all the help on offer. It is also recommended evaluation practice to allow new programmes to bed in for a while before one attempts to draw conclusions about their impact. As the pilots did not begin until the end of November of last year, the first results of the evaluation will not be published until the end of this year and the beginning of next. I shall ensure that the noble Earl and the noble Baroness have a copy of the outcome of any evaluation as soon as it is available.
The noble Earl asked whether the evaluation would be able to monitor discrimination on such matters as age, gender, race and disability with regard to entry into the labour market. Certainly, that is something I am happy to take back to ensure that it is considered. The noble Earl raises an important point.
The noble Earl also asked about the number of people who have been sanctioned. Just as in the New Deal for young people, the vast majority of people in the pilot schemes responded well to the opportunities on offer. However, regrettably, a small minority did not. Our early statistics suggest that 1 per cent of those who started the pilot schemes in Great Britain have been sanctioned. That amounts to fewer than 400 people.
I turn to the noble Earl's amendment. I accept that he is making an important point and it is vital that we measure the impact of the New Deal on individuals. The published objectives of the New Deal make it clear that a reduction in social exclusion is one of the Government's aims. Therefore, as regards some of the groups to which he explicitly drew our attention, we must take care to ensure that they are not permanently socially excluded.
546
The evaluation strategy which we already have in place for the New Deal, including the pilot schemes, will enable us to explore what happens to those who have been subject to benefit sanctions, through both surveys and one-to-one interviews. I hope that that provides the noble Earl with some reassurance. The evaluation will be able to examine all the comparisons he suggests. If the noble Earl would find it useful, I should be happy to write to him giving further precise details of our evaluation plans.
I hope that my reply has reassured the noble Earl and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I do not believe that it would serve a useful purpose because we are doing exactly what he intends. That laudable curiosity to which he refers is well embedded in the Department for Education and Employment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, asked whether we have consulted the various parties to the development of the pilot schemes. I can confirm that that is the case. It would be difficult for us to undertake the work had not the agencies to which she referred been fully engaged in the discussions that took place when we set them up.
The noble Baroness and the noble Earl asked about the cost of the pilot schemes. The budget is £136.5 million for the whole period from November 1998 to the anticipated conclusion next year.
I hope that I have covered all the questions that have been asked. If I have failed in any way, I shall write to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment and that we can agree these regulations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for a full and generous reply. I am extremely interested in what she says about the evaluation. It seems to go a long way towards meeting what I am asking. She appreciates that the key issue that concerns me is the means of subsistence available to those concerned. Having praised laudable curiosity, I must practise what I preach. I should be most grateful to see the further documents on evaluation, which the Minister so generously offered to send me. In the light of those remarks, I shall of course beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Blood Donation
3.20 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the level of blood stocks and public participation in blood donation are adequate.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome those speakers who have stayed behind in the middle of Friday afternoon. My idea of introducing this small debate came from the initiative of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who arranged for a mobile blood unit to come to your Lordships' House earlier this year. I think

547
it is probably—certainly in my time—the first time we have ever discussed the National Blood Service. It is not before time.
I confess to having no medical knowledge but have been a blood donor for many years. I simply cannot understand why only 6 per cent of the adult population donate blood. It has been 7 per cent, which is the figure in most European countries. I would go further and say I consider it an indictment of society that people do not give blood as much as they should.
Before I become "holier than thou" and try to avoid blowing a gasket, I shall explain how I started to be a blood donor. I am sure there are other ways of becoming a donor but for me it was in 1954 when I was doing my national service in the ranks in the Army. The Medical Officer was a man of some years of distinction. Most of his life had been in the Indian Medical Service. I recall that he was a Medical Officer in Jodphur and that in the last war he commanded a hospital in Basra—robustly. His fury would always rise when a soldier's documentation was incorrect, which it often was. For instance, if a doctor forgot to record inoculations in the soldier's paybook the unfortunate soldier had to have them all over again. Hence, when the blood unit was set up there was no question of anyone not giving blood. One wretched corporal refused and he was subjected to a number of undignified tests. Sadly it took me after that time another 20 years before I donated again, basically, I must confess, through apathy. But then one finally got round to it and for the past 25 years I have given blood. At this stage perhaps it is worth while to give a little background to the history of blood donation.
The first successful blood transfusion took place in 1665 by Dr Richard Lower, who used animals as subjects. But human blood transfusions continued to cause unexplained deaths until 1900, when Dr Karl Landsteiner of Vienna discovered that there were four different blood groups. Again an interesting fact of early British history is reflected in the distribution of blood groups. Within the UK as invading Anglo Saxons came in—mostly Group A—they pushed the native Bronze Age Celts—mostly Group O—to the west and north.
I could cover a great deal more of this subject but I think it would be a good idea if I took up the cudgels again to destroy some of the myths that allow people to make what are sometimes absurd excuses. As I have already said, the attitude of most people is appalling. From time to time I have asked people whether they give blood. Some look askance as if one has made an improper suggestion. People usually say they would like to but never got round to it, or they produce one of the following myths. Sufferers from hay fever can donate provided they are well on the day. Many people believe they can never give blood after contracting hepatitis or jaundice, whereas except for certain types they can give blood after a period. So that is another myth gone.
Asthma sufferers requiring inhaler treatment can give blood so long as they have no symptoms on the day. Glandular fever patients can do so when they
548
recover, as well as ladies receiving hormone replacement therapy. The same applies for those receiving electrolysis. There are two other groups; namely, people who have travelled to a malaria area, who can donate six months after they return to the United Kingdom, if they are well, and, finally, those who indulge in body piercing, including ear-piercing, who need only wait one year before they can donate again.
The National Blood Service should he congratulated on improving its service. An appointments system has been introduced following complaints from people who thought they had been waiting for an inordinate length of time. I believe that those complaints were somewhat exaggerated. If you feel antisocial and you do not want to chat with your fellow donors, I suggest that you bring a good book. The age limits have also changed. You can start as young as 17 and continue until you are 70 provided you started donating before you reached the age of 60 years.
Noble Lords may think that my next point is a little trite, but quite a number of people go to give blood when they have not had anything to eat. You really must have something to eat, preferably something with iron in it or, I am told, red wine. Perhaps the noble Lord who is to answer the debate will dispel that theory. On a few occasions I have not been allowed to donate because my haemoglobin count has not been high enough. On one occasion I arrived to give blood, having had the said glass of red wine, but my count was not high enough. When I related this to a tough lady attendant, she said, "Next time you must have two glasses".
I shall now come onto a very sad point. The service is costly to run but it spends £1.5 million a year on advertising to get people there, which it really must do. Surely such a large sum of money could be better used as a grant or spent on research. The demand for blood is now static. In 1946 the need was only 200,000 donations a year. The figure is now more than 2 million.
I have probably said enough. I shall leave it to others to make their points. I fully appreciate the co-operation that I have received from the service and from the noble Lord, Lord Burlison, who is to reply. Before I sit down I shall give out the telephone number for people to become donors. It is 0345 711711. The telephone is answered fairly quickly and the people are extremely helpful. I should also mention—I know that the Minister will refer to this—that a great many more donations are needed at the turn of the millennium.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for raising this important subject. I start my speech with one slight apology. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is unable to be here so I am his stand-in, as it were.
I also have to make one confession. I have never given blood. I tried once when I was at university but managed to turn up five minutes after the booth closed. More recently, when a special centre was set up

549
in the Palace of Westminster to enable us to give blood, I managed to forget all about it. I remember looking in my diary and saying, "I meant to do that yesterday". I am quite sure that I am one of those people who is well intentioned until it comes to changing the details of their day. Unfortunately, we all tend to do that on certain issues. Blood donation just happens to be one of the issues for me.
The noble Lord said that £1.5 million is spent on advertising. I must disagree with him. That would seem to be a very small price to pay to get enough people to give blood. I feel quite guilty about it. I give an undertaking that by Christmas I will have at least started the process. We should all give more blood or at least start to give blood. I shall resist the temptation to come out with jokes and comments like, "One unit, that's nearly an armful", and other quotes from that famous sketch by Tony Hancock.
The National Blood Service has a rather chequered recent past. As a result of events in the Liverpool area, we have lost a chairman. Sir Colin Walker has been replaced by Mr Mike Fogden. That was as a result of a report by Professor Cash on the events in Liverpool. The report showed that the management in Liverpool had broken down and was no longer doing its job. There was inadequate leadership and people were being overloaded within the system. All credit must be given to the then Secretary of State for acting promptly once he received that report.
A major point I should like to put to the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate on behalf of the Government is this: how much progress have the Government made in their implementation of the recommendations in Professor Cash's report? We have learnt one thing from this matter: when it comes to dealing with the primary problems of the nation's healthcare, a regular blood supply is one of the building blocks that enables many functions to be carried out. Demand is rising because new discoveries have been made and more uses for blood are being found, not just for the raw material but for its components once they have been broken down. The number of cancer patients who require blood products is quite staggering. The more I read in preparation for the debate, the more surprised I became at the large number of uses for blood.
The National Blood Authority has been caught up, shall we say, in some of the major health scares of our time. Over the past decade and a half, it has had to deal with the problem of scanning for HIV infection. Unfortunately, some people became infected with that virus because the systems for detecting it in blood donations were not in place. There have also been problems with the various forms of hepatitis. Now there is the spectre of new variant CJD, which casts a dull light—if that is the correct expression—across the whole process. What progress has been made in the identification and eradication of this new danger from our blood supplies?
The subject of blood can be spoken to fairly shortly in broad terms, or requires infinite detail that would take far longer than the generous 15 minutes available
550
to noble Lords today. However, I should like to say that a national blood collection and distribution service is evidently of vital help to the National Health Service. If there are problems in its management, the Government must identify them and give full backing to all the means to rectify them. The Government must not skimp on costs. Furthermore, in regard to safety, funding should not be an inhibiting factor when it comes to statistical analysis.
On the matter of advertising, I feel that we need to do more. I am living proof that we should do more. I am one of those well-intentioned people for whom the £1.5 million worth of advertising was not enough to get me into the booth.
3.33 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Teviot has stolen a march on the rest of us with his Question today and I congratulate him. This issue is very important and achieved prominence among many noble Lords when, as my noble friend reminded us, earlier this year the so-called "Bloodmobile" parked itself in Black Rod's Garden, so generating some welcome national publicity as well as some high quality blood.
I doubt whether I am alone in regarding the work of the National Blood Service as one of this country's minor miracles. The statistics are extraordinary. Every day the service needs some 10,000 units of blood to meet demand from 350 hospitals in England and Wales. That demand has risen steadily over recent years, almost entirely as a result of advances in medical treatment. In 1946 only 200,000 donations were needed to serve the requirements of the entire country. Nowadays, some 2.4 million donations are collected every year from 1.9 million donors. As my noble friend said, that is equivalent to about 6 per cent of the population giving blood one, two, or occasionally three, times a year.
It is a characteristic of blood that some of its valuable components have only a limited shelf life. Red cells, for example, which are used in routine surgery, last only 35 days, and platelets, which are needed by patients undergoing cancer therapy, only five days. That means that there is a constant need to collect new blood. It is the reason why the National Blood Service refers to blood stocks in "days' worth".
When I was a Minister in MAFF, I had a fascinating introduction to the system of stock control and replenishment practised by the major supermarket multiples. At the heart of that system lies what is known as the "just in time" philosophy. It is a philosophy that also governs the supply of blood, but with a difference. For the supermarket, failure to maintain stocks at below the optimum level will result in empty shelves and lost profit. For the National Blood Service the consequences are far more serious.
I happen to have in front of me the figures for red cell stock levels as at 26th October at 9.00 a.m. My noble friend may be impressed to hear that. On the other hand, he may feel that I am just showing off. The figures show stocks of O positive at 17,933 units—well

551
above the critical threshold of 3,200 units—and stocks of O negative at 8,695 units, again well above the relevant threshold of 1,100. Total stocks stood at 53,985 units, or roughly five and a half days' worth, which must be regarded as satisfactory.
What is perhaps more illuminating than the figures for a particular day is the picture over a period of months. The National Blood Service has published figures which show that on 49 out of 251 working days during 1996–97—in other words, roughly 20 per cent of that year—total blood stocks in England fell below the critical threshold of 15,000 units. However, if we look at the first six months of the following year, the picture shows a dramatic improvement: the critical threshold of 15,000 units was never once breached. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether that general improvement has been sustained to the present, not least in the light of the additional strains imposed by the Government's waiting list initiative.
My noble friend's Question rightly draws attention not only to the demand for blood but also to the other side of the equation: the need for adequate supplies. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the N HS Executive is satisfied that the rate of increase in the demand for blood is not outstripping the rate at which new donors are recruited. Can he confirm also my understanding that over the past four years hospitals have increased their demand for blood by around 12 per cent? Is that upward trend expected to continue or to level out?
I believe in giving credit to the Government where it is due. One such bouquet must surely be appropriate when we look back at the advertising campaign for blood donations which took place between January and March this year. It led to blood stocks rising from under 15,000 units, a dangerously low level, to more than 40,000. Earlier this month the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, relaunched that campaign in preparation for Christmas and the millennium holiday. I should be interested to hear from the Minister the extent to which the National Blood Service has come to be reliant on campaigns such as this to maintain adequate stocks. I ask him two specific questions: what will be the cost of the latest campaign in relation to the anticipated quantity of blood supplies that. will result from it? Furthermore, how has the ratio changed in recent years between the cost of obtaining blood and the supplies of blood actually donated?
The cost of obtaining adequate supplies of blood is also influenced by the need to maintain public confidence. In 1998 the decision was taken to cease the fractionation of blood plasma from donors in England and Wales in the light of scientific advice on the theoretical risk of transmitting new variant CJD. All such plasma is now imported. In addition, since mid-1998, all donated blood has been subjected, as a precautionary measure, to a process known as leucodepletion, again to minimise any risk of new variant CJD being passed from donor to patient.
552
The maintenance of public confidence is vital and I do not in the least criticise the Government for taking those precautionary measures. However, will the Minister say what is the cost of those measures and how long they are likely to remain in place?
The voluntary and altruistic basis of blood donation is both precious and essential to our system of collection. What attitude surveys have been carried out, particularly among the young, to establish what may be the likely trend of the donor pool over the next few years? What are the obstacles to attracting new donors? Have the Government given any thought to promoting blood donation other than by advertising; for example, by story lines in popular television soap operas?
I am aware that at NHS trust level much can be done to conserve blood stocks by following good practice in transfusions and by minimising wastage. Will the Minister say whether all hospitals have disseminated up-to-date protocols for blood transfusions to the relevant staff and whether and to what extent autologous blood transfusions are becoming a practical possibility, particularly the practice known as perioperative cell salvage? How many partnerships has the National Blood Service established with district general hospitals to augment the number of collection centres?
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, reminded us, it is public knowledge that the National Blood Service. at an organisational level, has had its share of difficulties over the past two years. I pay tribute to the chief executive, Martin Goreham, who has identified and tackled head on a number of organisational shortcomings and who, with his management team, has formulated and implemented the necessary internal changes. I hope that the Minister shares my view that the NBS is better structured and focused than it has been in the past and that there is cause to hope that staff morale, which was patchy, is improving.
It is the efforts of the staff of the NBS and the continuing generosity of the British public in donating blood which underpin the work of our hospitals and which mean quite literally the difference between life and death for thousands of our fellow citizens. The occasion of this debate, for which I pay tribute to my noble friend, enables us to express our appreciation to blood donors and the NBS on whom we depend so greatly.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for asking this Question. It is extremely important to keep blood donation at the forefront of people's minds. I know that this House has a good record in relation to giving blood and in helping generally to publicise the need to do so. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, reminded us, noble Lords rolled up their sleeves in April of this year in order to give blood.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is a long-standing donor, going back to his days in the Army, to which he referred. We are grateful to him for his interest and for

553
keeping this essential cause and service in the public eye. I am not too sure whether his comments about two glasses of wine meant that he was restricting himself to that in the future. But whatever he meant, I applaud his actions.
At present the stocks of blood held centrally are at a high level—about 50,000 units in England. At present, there is only a small variation, up and down. That means that the National Health Service's need for blood can be fully met. As has been mentioned, 50,000 units is about five days' supply. The intention is to approach the millennium with between six and seven days' supply—about 60,000 to 70,000 units—so that we can be sure that we can cope.
Donations tend to drop during the festive season and are expected to drop a little more than usual this year because of the extended festivities. The contingency plans are in hand to cope with that. They are also in place to cope with future demand. Some forms of cancer, such as leukaemia or intensive treatment of breast cancer, require many units of blood.
In answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question, there are adequate stocks of blood, and they will become even more adequate. There have been times not so long ago when supplies have had to be managed very carefully indeed. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned, it was not unusual for the central stock to be around 15,000 units, which is just less than 2 days supply. The units of blood would be collected from the donors, taken to the blood centre where they were tested and processed, and taken as quickly as possible to hospitals all round the country for the patients who depend on them. The blood services can, and have, managed with 15,000 units of stock. That is a tribute to them and to the hospitals that gave their co-operation. But 50,000 units is a more reasonable amount. Red blood cells have a 35-day shelf life. The blood services ensure that when the hospitals receive the red cells, there are at least 10 days shelf life left.
The noble Earl also asked whether public participation in blood donation is adequate. That question needs some thought because it might suggest an expectation of the public, or a duty on their part, and this has involved some thorny issues. As regards the adequacy of public participation, ours was the first voluntary blood service in the world. The first volunteers gave blood at King's College Hospital in 1921. And in 1946, when the blood service in roughly its present form started, 200,000 donations a year were needed. Now it is somewhere near 2 million.
Comparing January this year with January 1998, 25 per cent more donors gave blood and the number who registered as donors almost doubled. So I think that public participation in blood donation is adequate, and those who donate blood make a much valued gift.
However, there is a cautionary note. A relatively small proportion of the public donate blood. As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, stated, that figure is about
554
6 per cent of the public. There is a continual need for supplies of donated blood. That means that while I can say that there are adequate stocks of blood at present, I do not want people to be so comforted by that message that they stop donating. The blood service needs regular, reliable donors and a regular supply of new donors to replace those who can no longer donate, for whatever reason.
I am therefore faced with a dilemma. I must be honest and tell the noble Lord that our blood stocks are adequate and that our donors are more than adequate. However, it is very important for the blood service that I add that for the blood stocks to continue to be adequate we are ever reliant on the donors continuing to be generous.
Altruism and blood donation was the subject of research commissioned in 1998 by the Central Office of Information on behalf of the Department of Health and the National Blood Service. It found that the moral imperative was very strong. People feel they ought to give blood, whether or not they do. If they do not give blood, they find reasons to explain it rather than saying that it is not important or that it is not relevant to them.
There was evidence in this survey and in others that altruistic attitudes and behaviour were declining, especially among young people, but I am pleased to say that giving blood seemed to have escaped that trend. The survey proposed that there were two major factors affecting altruistic behaviour: namely; is the potential beneficiary deserving? How much effort is involved in giving help?
People did not question the fact that people needing blood deserved help. They also thought that relatively little effort was required to give blood. It should be easy, with convenient blood donor sessions and little effort needed to find out about them.
Potential donors claimed that if they were made conscious of the constant need for blood, this would spur them into donating. That prompted careful thought about the best way to attract donors in these times. Television came to mind.
In the course of the past year, the National Blood Service (working with the Department of Health and the Central Office of Information) launched major initiatives to help potential donors to donate and to build up the number of regular donors. To back up the publicity, in December 1998, a national call centre was set up to take all the calls about blood donation; give information on donor sessions; make appointments or rearrange them, and refer callers to the blood service's doctors if they had a medical query. It answered over 700,000 calls and registered 90,000 donors.
Between Christmas and New Year, Members from another place turned out in their constituencies and gave blood. A picture of Joanna Lumley appeared on the front page of the Guardian. She was with a small boy whose life had been saved through a blood transfusion. On 5th January 1999, just after New Year, the television advert for blood donation came on air for the first time and ran from January until the end of March. While the TV advert was running, blood

555
stocks rose nearly threefold. There was a 25 per cent increase in new donors giving blood and an increase of almost 100 per cent in new donors enrolled.
As part of a plan to have two complementary TV adverts, a second one has just been made and appeared on TV for the first time yesterday. It shows a busy street and focuses on a young man who, the voiceover says, is "about to save a life". The film cuts to a brief shot of an operating theatre and a successful operation. The voiceover concludes, "Yesterday, he gave blood". The overall message is, "Do something amazing today. Save a Life. Give Blood".
I have spoken so far of the level of central blood stocks held at blood centres and in the blood service's blood banks. Those stocks are delivered to individual hospitals which hold manageable amounts. The blood service has been working with hospitals in the national blood stocks project to ensure that there is an improvement in the physical management of the stocks and that there is a continual improvement in the relationship between blood centres and hospitals based on mutual trust and co-operation. Donated blood is a very valuable resource and it is important that it is carefully managed and used.
NHS trusts and clinicians are also being asked to improve transfusion practice so that it is first class. That includes initiatives such as ensuring that all trusts in which blood is transfused have hospital transfusion committees in place to oversee all aspects of transfusion.
I turn to some of the points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the question of blood services and leucodepletion—the process referred to in reference to CJD. The blood services in the UK have carried through a number of changes as a precautionary measure against the theoretical risk of CJD. The blood centres filter the blood for transfusion so that white cells are removed—a process called "leucodepletion"—because it is thought by the expert group that if a variant CJD infectious agent were to be present in blood, it would most likely be in the white cells. It has been an enormously complex process for the blood service to install all the filters of appropriate quality, and I am pleased to say that from Monday next, 1st November, all blood collected will be leucodepleted.
556
With regard to the comparison between expenditure and supply, the supply is excellent. I am happy to write to the noble Lord on that with more comprehensive details, but we are pleased with the progress which has been made at the moment.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, regarding surveys taken on younger donors. Such surveys are regularly carried out in this area. Young people feel able to give if they believe that the cause is a deserving one. However, once again, it is really a matter of getting the message over. It is not too hard, but young people need to be pressed a little so that they see this as being a priority.
Mention was also made of the Liverpool issue. Without going into it in any great detail, I should like to tell noble Lords that we are very pleased with the direction in which Liverpool is going. A good deal of cash has been put into that area, and I believe we will find that the blood centre there proves to be an excellent resource with an excellent future. There are a number of points which I have not covered because I am mindful of the time. However, with the agreement of noble Lords, I shall be pleased to write to them on the issues not mentioned in my response.
One of the main features of the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and of his comments, was the cost of television advertising. I believe that the total cost of both advertisements that were created was about £1.5 million. That may seem to be a lot of money, but when one weighs it up in relation to the blood resources and the generation of new donors, it is clear that this is cash which has been well worth spending.
We should be proud, not complacent, about the current level of blood stocks. We should be proud of the donors we have, because they are personally far more than adequate. However, we shall always need more of them and must continue to make every effort to increase their numbers. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the blood donation service is now better structured, better staffed and, indeed, more efficient. Indeed, it really has a healthy future in front of it.
House adjourned at three minutes before four o'clock.

  AIDS Vaccine Development
  AIDS Vaccine Development
  Population Control Programmes: Funding
  Population Control Programmes: Funding
  Population Control: Policy
  Population Control: Policy
  Seizures of Weapons and Ammunition
  Seizures of Weapons and Ammunition
  Northern Ireland: Arms Decommissioned
  Northern Ireland: Arms Decommissioned
  RCDS Exercise: "Enemy Forces"
  RCDS Exercise: "Enemy Forces"
  Immigration and Asylum Bill, Clause 20
  Immigration and Asylum Bill, Clause 20
  Amsterdam Treaty and Immigration and Asylum Measures
  Amsterdam Treaty and Immigration and Asylum Measures
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Regional Venture Capital
  Regional Venture Capital
  Farmers' Income Tax Relief
  Farmers' Income Tax Relief
  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994: Amendment Proposals
  Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994: Amendment Proposals
  Foreign Affairs Committee Reports: Premature Disclosure
  Foreign Affairs Committee Reports: Premature Disclosure
  Rural Development Plans
  Rural Development Plans
  Seal Populations
  Seal Populations