Commons Chamber

                    The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.
                

House Of Commons

Wednesday 25 October 1995

The House met at Ten o'clock

Prayers

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

General Practitioners (West Country)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Bates.]

10.5 am

This is my first opportunity to initiate one of the new morning Adjournment debates, and it is quite a relief to be here in the morning rather than late at night, as has been my more common experience of Adjournment debates. The fact that we are here in the morning is relevant to the issue that I want to raise, because it has always been my view that we raise and debate issues more effectively when we are wide awake than when we are exhausted by overlong proceedings in this House.

That is all the more true for doctors, who must struggle with overly long hours and are often called out to deal with patients in the middle of the night. The Liberal Democrats in the south-west have sought this debate because we believe that all is not well down at the surgery, or—to put it another way—general practitioners in Devon and Cornwall are at breaking point.

In response to concerns raised with us by both health service professionals and patients, we recently sought the views of 1,000 GPs across the south-west, of whom 320 responded, many on behalf of their practice. That is a huge rate of return for a postal survey, where a response of 10 per cent. is regarded as very high. That in itself shows the serious concerns that many GPs have.

The survey showed that more than half of doctors work an average week of 64 hours or more, with seven in 10 often working more than 80 hours a week. Most frightening of all, however, was that some GPs reported that they were working as many as 120 hours a week. Not surprisingly, morale among GPs is falling rapidly, and that is reflected in recruitment levels. Massive work loads, increasing bureaucracy and continuing underfunding have all contributed to the present level of strain on GPs in the west country. It is a crisis that Conservative Ministers cannot afford to ignore, and which impacts directly on patient care.

GPs—any more than Members of Parliament—are not super-human, and they cannot continue to work longer and longer hours. Yet more and more work has been added relentlessly to their working day.

For instance, in recent years GPs have been required to add annual reports, medical audits, health promotion forms and early discharge schemes to their already busy patient schedules. Doctors have found themselves working more hours, but that time has been spent in the main not with patients, but at their desks completing forms. Indeed, 100 per cent. of GPs responding to the Liberal Democrats' survey said that health promotion and increased practice administration had caused an escalation in their work load.

That has not just evolved.

The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, as a former member of the health education authority board, I have been interested in health promotion for many years. He will also appreciate that health care, education and promotion are now recognised as important parts of fundholding practices. General practitioners working within the fundholding structure are recompensed for that work, and they are recognised as providing an important service.

The hon. Gentleman paints a misleading picture of practices in my constituency. I conduct a parliamentary medical forum and I regularly meet general practitioners. The hon. Gentleman's portrayal of GP morale and the resources available to GPs is not the picture I get.

It is the picture painted by GPs and their representatives, and I shall refer to their comments later. In view of the scale of response from general practitioners—including many in his constituency—I think that the hon. Gentleman should be aware of the pressures.

I am not opposed to health promotion: it is an important part of the health service, and should play an increasingly significant role. However, we cannot ask doctors to do more without recognising that, unless they receive additional help, they will be under pressure from increasing work loads.

As to the hon. Gentleman's comments about fundholding practices, those practices are funded on a different basis from those of other GPs. They get extra funding, and if all doctors received such funding, fewer would be under pressure. In our policy document presented at our party conference, we argue that all doctors—irrespective of whether they are fundholding, work in a co-operative group or work directly with funds managed by local health authorities—should be funded on the same basis in order to try to meet the funding shortfall.

The pressures to which I refer have not just evolved: they have resulted directly from Government policy. In my view—I appreciate that Conservative Members are unlikely to agree with it—the pressures have been caused by the Government's refusal to provide real funding for all general practices and their insistence on more bureaucracy and paperwork, much of which I believe is not required. The patients charter is one example.

As the hon. Gentleman has mentioned general practitioners' work loads, I foreshadow that I intend to make a very important point in my speech that I am sure that he would like to address. Before the general practitioners' contract was introduced in 1989–90, my Department and the British Medical Association conducted a survey of GP work loads. Another survey was submitted to the independent pay review body last year. They showed that GPs' work loads had increased by 2 per cent. over that period, while their remuneration had increased by 6 per cent.

I understand that general practitioners are under pressure, but I do not believe that it is correct to suggest that it is as intense, or is increasing as fast, as the hon.

Gentleman claims. With respect, I suggest that there are slightly wider surveys than the one that the hon. Gentleman has carried out.

My hon. Friend and I shall pursue those points in due course. I suspect that the problem is reflected in the comments of doctors from Devon and Cornwall because of the particular pressures they face operating in rural practices, where it is much harder to obtain the support that is available in the cities. For example, very few doctors in my area have cover for their out-of-hours work. That is the reason for highlighting the problems of Devon and Cornwall. I do not suggest that those problems are unique to that region, but I suspect that they are not reflected evenly across the whole country.

I have referred to the patients charter. Ministers boast of the benefits that the charter brings to the patient, and of the expectations that each patient is now entitled to have of his or her GP. However, while Ministers have set standards nationally, I do not believe that they have provided the necessary resources locally. In other words, the promise and the increased patient expectation that accompanies it are not matched by the necessary additional funds.

I stress that these are the views of a large number of GPs across the two counties. Some 98 per cent. of the GPs surveyed said that Government initiatives, such as the patients charter, have led to unrealistic expectations of GPs, especially given the lack of funds. GPs' frustration at the policies and their increased work load was highlighted in the recent furore over the out-of-hours settlement.

The Minister may argue that the issue has been put to bed, but that is not the case according to GPs in the south-west. Dr. Green, chair of the local medical committee in Devon, said:

"The current solution for out of hours is only accepted by Doctors in the South West as a first step in addressing the work load problem."

While the threat of industrial action may have abated—I am glad that that is so—the deep-seated problem of doctors' hours remain.

In saying that the Government's settlement has not solved the problem, I am particularly conscious of the additional difficulties facing practices in the south-west. Rural GPs in much of Devon and Cornwall struggle with their night work, often unable to load-share. Many parts of the west country are so remote that it is difficult to see how any deputising arrangements or co-operatives could offer respite to GP night visits. In that context, our survey showed that only 38 per cent. of the GP respondents used any kind of deputising service.

I have highlighted the anger felt by many GPs in the south-west about the increased work load, imposed bureaucracy and the lack of funding from central Government. However, what is most serious are the dangers that low morale brings to patients, doctors and to the health service. I turn first to the danger to patients.

Conservative policies with regard to the health service and the hours that doctors are forced to work as a result are putting lives at risk. Some 70 per cent. of the GPs who responded to our survey said that the hours that they are expected to work could put their patients at risk. The West Briton and Royal Cornwall Gazette, a local paper in my constituency, said:

"Anyone driving into Cornwall on the A30 cannot fail to have noticed a roadside sign "Tiredness can kill." That it could be your worn out GP who threatens your life is chilling."

Such dangers are best highlighted by local doctors. One Cornish doctor said that the strain of working long hours is leading to potentially fatal mistakes. He continued:

"I am sure mistakes have been made and will continue to be made by people dead on their feet; tiredness can kill. I have been on the end of a needle at 3 am and finding myself having to concentrate very hard on giving the substance intended and putting it in the right place."

Similarly, a BMA spokesperson said that on one occasion when he worked "literally around the clock", he felt that he should not have been driving, let alone seeing patients. Earlier this month, a Plymouth GP said:

"the increasing administration and the increasing burden, especially night calls, certainly makes people less efficient, capable of mistakes and more dangerous."

I do not think that we can dispute that claim when we consider the hours that doctors say that they are working.

I do not argue that the problems—particularly the issue of out-of-hours care in rural areas—are easy to solve. However, we must find solutions, because patients are being put at risk and doctors are under undue pressure.

Having spent 24 hours on an aeroplane returning from a Foreign Affairs Committee trip to Australia, I particularly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks about tiredness, and I accept wholeheartedly his point that tiredness can affect performance. However, can he produce any evidence that patients in Devon and Cornwall have suffered as a result of doctors being overtired? Perhaps he could provide actual evidence rather than opinions gleaned from a survey. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that some survey results can be pretty vague.

Many doctors responded to the survey, and a huge proportion of them conveyed their concerns. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman will be sceptical about a survey that we have conducted; I understand that. However, there is no margin of error in the figures. Some 97 per cent. of doctors have stated their concerns, and we have statistics about the hours they work. While the hon. Gentleman may not agree with my points about Government policy, I do not believe that he would argue that doctors face no pressures or difficulties. There is confidentiality about patient files and although doctors referred to cases that they had experienced, they obviously did not give names and addresses, and one would not expect them to do that. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman asks the impossible.

I shall give some facts that are available and which illustrate the danger to doctors in terms of their health and well being. The Western Morning News puts it well when it states:

"In the West Country GPs are too tired, stressed out and too overworked to see to their own health."

For example, the chair of the Cornish medical committee says that he knows of 20 local GPs who are receiving psychiatric care because of stress caused by long hours and other work-related problems. Dr. Green, the chairman of the local medical committee in Devon, gave the example of Paignton, where there have been resignations from two practices in the past year, and a further early retirement because of stress-induced ill health.

The survey also illustrates the effects of the Government's neglect of GPs on recruitment and on the future of the family doctor service. General practice training schemes have been reporting a sharp fall in the number of applicants for places over the past four or five years, and that is now working through to general practice. GPs who are retiring, many of them early, are leaving places which cannot be filled because new doctors who are at the start of their careers are quite rightly not prepared to work under the stress and in the conditions to which older GPs have become accustomed.

Young doctors are taking part-time work, shift work or locum work in preference to making a long-term commitment to general practice. That can only be seen as a reflection of the pressures they are under. General practice is clearly not attracting doctors in the way it did in the past, and in the long run that is a serious problem because we could end up with the situation that already pertains in dental practices, where patients find it hard to get cover.

A shortage puts remaining GPs under further pressure with their patient lists. The concern was highlighted by the survey, which showed that more than half the GPs said that they would not choose to be GPs if they were starting their careers today, and 96 per cent.—virtually all of them—said that there had been a noticeable decline in the recruitment of new GPs.

Those are disturbing trends, and this concern was supported by the Royal College of General Practitioners, which responded yesterday to the survey. It said:

"The concern about recruitment and retention shown in your survey would be endorsed by the RCGP and is borne out by experience across the UK."

The facts speak for themselves. GPs in Cornwall and Devon are suffering, patients are being put at risk, and general practices are under pressure.

It is time that the Secretary of State for Health took real action to tackle those problems by looking to cut the bureaucracy that has been added to doctors' burdens, and by addressing the problems of rural practices in particular. That needs increased funding. As we approach the Budget, I hope that the Minister will fight for NHS patients rather than agree to the tax cut election bribes that the Chancellor has said he wants.

At our party conference, and in our health policy proposal that was debated there, Liberal Democrats set out plans to cut bureaucracy and paperwork and put more money into the NHS. That money would be raised especially through increased tobacco taxation. We ought to reduce demand through wide-ranging health promotion plans, and we must provide the resources to ensure that that can be effective.

There are genuine problems in rural areas such as Devon and Cornwall. The sparsity of the population, and the fact that many GPs work more or less on their own, inevitably mean that the pressures on the health service as a whole are especially reflected in such areas. That is why we sought to debate these issues and find out more about what doctors had to say.

When we wrote to doctors we expected neither the scale of the response nor the strength of feeling. Doctors, and particularly GPs, are not traditionally regarded as campaigning left wingers, nor do I think that they are such even now. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to their concerns.

10.24 am

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate and on his excellent speech, which described the worrying findings of the survey. He raised many interesting and some quite alarming points.

In particular, I was struck by the finding that 70 per cent. of GPs thought that the hours that they are expected to work could put their patients at risk. That is not a rhetorical device used by my hon. Friend, nor is it polemical: it is the opinion that was expressed by the GPs themselves. It is the considered opinion of 70 per cent. of them that the hours they are working could put their patients at risk. We should all be concerned about that, and about the long-term implications of the survey.

Percentages have been bandied about. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 70 per cent., but what does that mean in terms of numbers? How many doctors responded to the Liberal Democrat pamphlet by saying that the hours they worked could put patients at risk?

I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro outlined the scale of the survey. There were 320 responses, some of which were on behalf of several GPs working together in a practice. If my mental arithmetic works quickly enough this morning, I would say that that means that more than 200 expressed the opinion that I have just described.

The survey findings seem to strike very much the same note as that struck by the findings of the study conducted by the general medical services committee of the BMA. That study was concerned, in the same way as we were concerned, about recruitment and morale in the profession. The task group dealing with that looked at the evidence from some practices that were finding difficulty in recruiting GPs.

Dr. Ian Banks, the chairman of the task group that produced the report, said:

"The problem of GP recruitment has now reached crisis proportions and this is bound to affect the quality of care to patients, … GPs want to see less bureaucracy in general practice. They want to ensure equity of access to the NHS for all patients and adequate resources to fund the care of patients discharged back into the community."

Dr. Banks also made the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Truro referred—that, although GPs have accepted the out-of-hours settlement, they hope that it is just a first step towards a more general recognition of the problems they are suffering and towards a more acceptable, comprehensive and long-term solution to those problems.

Not only is the health of patients being put at risk directly by tired, stressed and overworked doctors, but the recruitment crisis means that things could get considerably worse. Patient health could be jeopardised by a lack of qualified doctors who are willing to take on the GP role, and low morale in the profession is surely the decisive factor in that.

The problem is exacerbated by early retirement. Some of those who are heading towards retirement age are finding that it is all just too much for them, and there has been an increase in the trend of early retirement in the past few years. That leaves doctors, and especially those in rural practices who are struggling, with even more of a work load.

Morale is so low that some advertised jobs are attracting only two or three applicants, compared with 40 or 50 just a few years ago. Will that lead to a drop in quality? In one region, EC doctors are taking advantage of that situation by joining UK vocational training schemes. More than half the GP registrars in the East Anglian region are EC doctors. If they return to their own countries, their training will have been a costly subsidy by Britain. Although the employment of such doctors has the short-term benefit of filling training posts, it will not solve the long-term manpower problem in general practice, unless they stay on and become GPs in the national health service.

There is also the problem of part-time GPs. It is entirely good that there are more women GPs, but many of those want to work part time, and many male GPs are also seeking to switch to part-time work. As morale among general practitioners drops, fewer people want to be a GP, those who are reaching retirement age choose to retire, and others choose to work part-time, who on earth will take up the work and fill the gap that is being left behind?

Why has morale dropped? My hon. Friend the Member for Truro referred to out-of-hours work, which is a serious issue. Patients' expectations of the service that their GPs provide has increased a great deal in recent years. In some respects, that has been stoked by the Government's initiatives. It does not follow that those initiatives are wrong—far from it. It remains the case, however, that, if people expect more, more resources are needed to fulfil the expectations.

That is especially clear in relation to the out-of-hours issue. Some patients seem to expect an almost routine service to be available—not an emergency service—24 hours a day. That is something that doctors, as caring people, clearly have to struggle with, but it is extremely annoying and tiresome for them to struggle out in the early hours of the morning to answer a patient call and to find that it is a straightforward, routine matter that could have been dealt with the following morning in the surgery. Everyone recognises that that is happening on a widespread basis.

Another problem is the interaction between general practitioners and their local hospitals. Again, the position in rural areas differs from that in urban areas. Recently, I have been talking to doctors at a very rural practice in my constituency who are suffering badly in terms of their financial shortfall. They made the point that some GPs in urban areas can get around some financial deficits by going into hospitals and undertaking various programmes of work. That is not possible for doctors who operate in surgeries that are 20, 30 or more miles from the local hospitals.

In any event, the interface between the GP and the hospital causes problems. Because of underfunding in the secondary sector, GPs are spending more time trying to make the system work, liaising with patients and hospitals for appointments and treatments, and dealing with the trend to pass the prescribing costs for drugs from the secondary sector to the primary sector. GPs are often called to prescribe drug treatments for which they are not clinically responsible.

In addition, there is the problem that my hon. Friend touched on briefly, of early discharge from hospital. We all know that there is a trend towards patients being discharged earlier. That would be, and is welcome where adequate community care services exist, but sometimes that support is not there, so doctors find it difficult to care for recently discharged patients who develop post-operative complications.

My hon. Friend referred to administration. Increased paperwork shifts the emphasis of the job away from patient care. He referred to health promotion, and the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) said that some recognition of that has been made in terms of fundholding GPs' financial settlement. That is true, but the fact remains that there are only 24 hours in a day, and the more hours are taken up in that sort of paperwork, the fewer are left for dealing with patient care.

Patient complaints are increasing again, partly due to some of the initiatives that have been taken. They lead to additional stress and additional paperwork, as does the patients charter. The document states that patients have various rights, but does not really give any indication that they have reciprocal responsibilities, so that has fuelled the dramatic rise in patient expectations.

When referring to the costs of the national health service, the point is often made that science advances swiftly, and medical knowledge moves fast. We need to guarantee that general practitioners, including those working however remotely out in the sticks, have time to go away and study developments in the profession; otherwise, the medical advances that are being made will be meaningless. Opportunities for study must be there, and they are impinged on by out-of-hours work.

Because of reorganisations, there has been turmoil in the NHS for five years or so. Frequent structural changes mean that doctors do not know whom they will be meeting from month to month, and the instability makes planning difficult for them. The continual denial that there is a two-tier system does not help—there is such a system. If that could be recognised and dealt with, it would assist all the planning and organisation that doctors are expected to undertake. It is obvious that, in some instances, non-clinical considerations are determining where and when patients are treated.

Why are general practitioners leaving the profession early? A survey in the west country of 515 GPs showed that not one wanted to work beyond the age of 60. The reasons cited were the increased work load and bureaucracy, increasingly unrealistic patient expectations, fear of violence, and patient complaints. Doctors have had enough, and can see no option but to get out. Basically, there is a feeling of loss of control and powerlessness in the face of seemingly open-ended demands and a belief that changes are being imposed without regard to GPs' views. Low morale is driving doctors away from the profession, and frankly, who can blame them?

What could be done? There are just a few remedies that I should like to propose. The Government must start to co-operate more fully with the profession to improve morale. They must resolve the out-of-hours issue; ensure that general practitioners have protected study time; curtail the bureaucratic burden on GPs, which is spiralling out of control; ensure equity of access to the national health service for all patients; ensure that there are adequate resources to fund the care of patients discharged back into the community; improve communication between the primary and secondary sectors; include within the patients charter a clear and realistic statement of what the NHS can be expected to deliver; and prevent prescribing costs from being improperly transferred to general practice, by ensuring that the secondary sector provides the required treatment.

The Government should also end the uncertainty caused by frequent changes to the NHS structure, give medical students more exposure to general practice during their training, and consider making general practice an element of general or higher postgraduate training in medicine.

Those are just a few suggestions that might provide some long-term solution to the problem that we can identify from this survey and from the survey conducted by the British Medical Association. None of those things can be done overnight—no one pretends that they should be—but the debate's purpose is to highlight the situation that exists, to consider what lessons can be learned from it and what remedies there might be in the longer term. I hope that we will hear positive comments from the Minister on a number of those points.

10.36 am

Perhaps my interventions during the speeches of the hon. Members for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) showed a certain scepticism on my part about surveys in general, and about those by the Liberal Democrats in particular. I remember a survey they did just before the last local elections on the position of teachers in Cornwall and education funding, which seemed to give the impression that, by the end of the year, Cornwall was going to be denuded of teachers. Of course, nothing happened.

Having said that, the points raised by the hon. Members are serious ones. Not for one minute am I suggesting that our general practitioners in Cornwall, Devon and way beyond the south-west do not face tremendous pressures of the sort described in the so-called survey and by the two hon. Gentlemen: yes, of course they do.

It is a feature of modern life today that all the professions are under pressure and strain. We recognise that across the professional sector and beyond. Dare I suggest that Members of Parliament themselves are under pressure, and, in the time that I have been in the House, those pressures have mounted relentlessly and remorselessly. That is a fact of life today, and to a degree, one must accept it.

The hon. Member for North Devon was on a good point when he said that general practitioners face complaints from their patients. They probably did not face such complaints 30, 40 or 50 years ago. The whole climate has changed. People, perhaps rightly, do not think that, because a person is a doctor, an architect or a dentist, or in some other profession, he or she is beyond questioning or complaint. That is the nature of the society in which we live.

My view is that the complaint apparatus has gone a bit too far, and I hope that we will see a sensible correction of it. The inevitable result of patients' complaints is, as has already been described, additional pressure on those who, in most cases, are trying their utmost to help.

There are other pressures on doctors, and Liberal Democrat Members are right to talk about the added bureaucracy in the NHS over the years. I was delighted to note that, after his appointment, one of the first visits made by the Minister for Health was to Cornwall and the west country. I believe that he visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Truro. I am sure that my hon. Friend will say today that the checklist outlined by the hon. Member for North Devon has been addressed to varying degrees by the Government recently.

I have no complaint about the Liberal Democrats featuring the pressures under which general practitioners operate. The hon. Member for Truro made an important point about the particular pressure to maintain a night service in remote and rural areas, and that pressure undoubtedly exists.

If I have a complaint, it is that the debate might give the wrong impression to people outside. The speeches by the two hon. Members who have participated in this debate—and perhaps in others—and their concentration on the problem areas, might give the overall impression that everything is wrong with the general practitioner service. That is not the case in Cornwall.

indicated assent.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Truro acknowledges that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne talked about the impression he gains from his regular contact with GPs through the medical forum in his constituency. I am in regular contact with the GPs in my constituency, as, I am sure, are all hon. Members. When I meet GPs, I hear some grumbles, but I do not believe that it is of the scale that might be conveyed by the comments in this debate, or by the Liberal Democrat survey.

Hon. Members should visit the health centres in their own constituencies. There is a health centre run by general practitioners in Mullion in my constituency, and there is an excellent health centre in the old Stennack school in St. Ives. It is a marvellous building in the centre of town, which has been transformed and caters well for those GPs. I do not think that anybody can reasonably say that the service is in absolute crisis. I fully accept that GPs are under pressure, but overall they are providing a marvellous service to communities right across the country.

There are problems, but I believe that the Government have addressed many of them. I am delighted that a settlement has been reached with the profession over the out-of-hours difficulty, which had undoubtedly become a focus for discontent. While acknowledging all the problems and pressures faced by GPs, it would be wrong to give the impression that the service is crumbling or that it is not delivering—

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that much of what happens within the GP service is very good, particularly in Cornwall. As with many things, the nature of communities there is that people are aware of each other's needs. That helps to generate a high level of service, but perhaps it also increases the pressures in some respects. Surely the recruitment problems illustrate the degree of urgency about this. It is becoming difficult to get doctors to do the job.

I believe that that is so, although I have yet to see the detailed figures for Cornwall. I shall want to look at that. Cornwall has always been lucky in that it has been able to attract GPs because it is an attractive part of the country. If there are difficulties in attracting GPs to such an area, it would be extremely serious. Nobody has come to me and said, "Mr. Harris, are you aware that Cornwall is facing a crisis in the recruitment of MPs?" [Laughter.] I mean GPs—there is no problem in attracting MPs.

It was interesting and revealing that the hon. Member for Truro did not provide any figures. Perhaps the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) might do that. If there are problems in filling vacancies, that needs to be addressed.

The hon. Member for North Devon mentioned the difficulties of early retirement. That is not a problem that is special to medicine. Changes in our way of life, particularly in the professions, mean that many people want to retire at 60. It may be because of the pressures, or it may be for other reasons. I do not think that the medical profession can be insulated from that.

I pay tribute to general practitioners throughout the country, but particularly in Cornwall. They perform an invaluable service. Hon. Members know the GPs in their constituencies. We are aware of their dedication, and we appreciate that the pressures on them have increased, for the reasons that I have given. If there are any ways in which we can reduce those pressures, we should do so.

I believe that the Government have been tackling the bureaucratic demands being placed upon them, and we should continue to pursue that. I have no quarrel with the Liberal Democrats for raising this important subject, but I hope that no one gains the impression that we are facing a fundamental crisis in the GP service. If there are problems, they must be tackled.

10.46 am

I apologise for my delay in attending the debate. One of the things I had to do this morning was speak to a GP in my constituency. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to GPs and to the GP service across south Devon. General practitioners are in the forefront of health care in this country, and in my judgment, they provide a first-rate service, particularly in south Devon.

General practitioners are sophisticated individuals and they are aware of political pressures. We can look back in the lifetime of this Administration to issues such as generic medicines, where general practitioners were articulate in presenting their case. At the time of that row, one had many patients ringing up asking why the Government intended to deprive them of the medicines they had always used, and complaining that they had been told by their doctors that the Government could no longer afford them. I do not remember receiving a call of that type in the past six years. I believe that that crisis never materialised.

There was some anxiety about the initial reforms. I remember going to see a leading GP in my constituency to hear that he was wholly opposed to fundholding practices. I sat down with him for one and a quarter hours discussing why he believed that fundholding was entirely wrong. Three weeks before the last general election, I was amused to receive a call from him saying that he had applied for fundholding status, and asking me if I could speed up his application, on the basis that it would be an asset in the general election campaign. That same doctor is now a highly articulate advocate of the benefits of fundholding practices.

I move on to the issue that has prompted the debate. The survey is interesting for several reasons. The Liberal Democrats in Cornwall and Devon produced a questionnaire that was distributed to 1,000 doctors. It seems that 680 decided not to participate.

No.

The hon. Gentleman says no. understand that there were 320 replies.

The hon. Gentleman may not have been in his place to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) when he introduced the debate, when he made it clear that a number of the respondents replied on behalf of their practices. Therefore, the number of doctors represented in the responses to the survey is far increased over the figure to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

I would be interested to know precisely how many doctors are supposed to be represented. Based on the information in the survey results, I say again that only 320 doctors replied. There is nothing wrong with that—that is a significant figure. I merely point out the difference between the two figures.

The survey is, in my judgment, in the judgment of doctors to whom I have spoken and in the judgment of the health authority in the area which I represent, deeply flawed. A survey dealing with out-of-hours working and stress on general practitioners was conducted a short while ago by Dr. Millard. It was a scientific survey, conducted with the full support of health authorities. It was designed specifically to be helpful in identifying GPs' specific problems.

The Liberal Democrat survey has a misleading title—"Down at the Surgery, all is not well". I do not believe that to be the position. If we were setting out to undertake a scientific survey of doctors' opinions, we would first take care about the questions posed. Having studied the Liberal Democrat survey, I must tell the House that it is barely literate. For example, the use of apostrophes is somewhat eccentric.

I would imagine that the objective of such a survey would be to try to identify particular problems within the GP service. That is what Dr. Millard did. As a direct consequence of the studies that have been undertaken by the health authority concerned, several initiatives have been taken.

First, to deal with the problem of out-of-hours work, an initiative has been taken to introduce co-operatives, so as to reduce the burden on individual doctors. Secondly, a stress counselling service has been introduced to help individual doctors who feel that they are in some difficulty. That is significant. Thirdly, a retired GP in Exeter has been recruited to provide a confidential service to individual GPs who feel in some way at risk.

I have no objections to a survey of the sort that we are discussing being conducted. If it were to be distributed to Members and health authorities, that would be extremely helpful. The reality is that the survey is full of the most bogus bar graphs, with which we are all familiar.

Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that the survey was politically motivated. He would surely acknowledge that it would be entirely out of character with all the surveys that the Liberal Democrats have conducted in the past.

Perish the thought that it should be politically motivated. But I suppose that I should give the Liberal Democrats some credit. In the middle of an industrial dispute over the specific issue of out-of-hours working, why not conduct a survey on the specific issue?

Of all the topics that are important to GPs, what is the one issue on which the questionnaire concentrates? The answer is out-of-hours working. It must not be forgotten that it was a voluntary exercise. Equally, we must not forget that we are talking about £6,000 to £8,000 a year for the individual GPs who undertake out-of-hours working. There is no obligation upon them, but there is a considerable financial incentive.

It is interesting that the document was compiled in the middle of an industrial dispute. Nowhere in the literature that I have read is it stated that the dispute has been settled. It was compiled at a time when all GPs were particularly concerned about the specific issue to which the survey relates. They are articulate and sophisticated, and they were given the opportunity to over-egg their case. In fact, they did not. Only a proportion of them were critical in their responses to the survey.

The hon. Gentleman has said that the survey was conducted in the middle of the dispute. It was not. The survey took place after the dispute was ended. One of the questions was:

"Do you feel the new deal does anything to ease increasing patient expectations, your workload or the particular problems faced by rural GP's?"

The survey was conducted after the deal had been struck.

No. The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The survey was conducted before the British Medical Association conference took place and before any announcement was made. We now have an example of how badly drafted the survey was. It should have referred to the deal on offer. The deal had not been accepted when the survey was conducted.

I move on to the publicity that was generated by the document. As I have said, it was not sent to health authorities or to individual Members. What was the priority for the document? In fact, it went to the media. The media were presented with press releases that described doctors working sometimes 120 hours a week.

I was concerned about that, and I telephoned the health authority in the area I represent and asked, "Do I really have GPs working 120 hours a week in my health authority area?" The response was, "Absolutely not. If there is one doctor in Torbay who is working 120 hours a week, we would like to hear urgently from that doctor. It is not the case." There are doctors, however—I spoke to one yesterday—who occasionally clock up 100 hours a week. That is not, however, 100 hours of continuous working, but 100 hours on call. I suggest that there is a considerable difference.

I do not object to the fact that the survey was conducted, although the questions are clearly politically weighted. I am surprised that so few doctors participated, given the opportunity that they were offered and the political climate as negotiations took place. I am disappointed with the way in which the issue has been exploited and presented to the media.

Individual patients are obviously concerned when they are told that their doctors are so stressed, so overworked and so under pressure that they are unable to give a good service, and individual lives may be put at risk. That is not the case. In my judgment, in the judgment of certainly one health authority, and in the judgment of the doctors to whom I have spoken, the survey has no scientific value.

It would seem that the only doctor directly quoted is one who is well known for opposing every type of national health service reform. He has had publicity going way back in opposing particular reforms.

The average GP sees between 35 and 40 patients a day. In a built-up urban area with perhaps a factor of deprivation, he may be seeing between 70 and 80 a day. That is not entirely satisfactory, and health authorities recognise that. Initiatives have been taken to try to improve doctors' work loads.

Those work loads are in part a consequence of the higher expectations that patients—quite rightly—have of their doctors. Patients pay a considerable amount into the national health service and are entitled to a high standard of care from their GP, but there is, of course, the problem of inappropriate calls made to doctors, and every GP will have a funny, or perhaps tragic, story of someone who needs nothing more than a couple of Anadin but nevertheless calls his doctor in the middle of the night. That is very frustrating for doctors.

The emphasis of the report was on out-of-hours terms and conditions, and doctors took the opportunity to air many of their grievances. One can well understand that, but the situation as portrayed in the media and by the Liberal Democrats is not wholly accurate.

In south Devon, the situation has improved considerably, thanks to initiatives to reduce pressure on GPs and improve out-patient care. In March 1982, when out-patient waiting lists were examined, 53 per cent. of people on those lists were seen within 13 weeks, 32 per cent. had to wait between 13 and 26 weeks, and the rest waited even longer. That situation had changed dramatically by March 1995, when 91 per cent. of the waiting list was seen within 13 weeks and just 7 per cent. were waiting between 13 and 26 weeks. Those figures reveal the efforts made to relieve the pressure on individual doctors and waiting lists at the health care trust there.

I recognise that doctors have a difficult job—no one would want to minimise the pressures on them—but to suggest that people's lives are at risk on a daily basis, or that there is a crisis at GPs' surgeries, is a betrayal of the trust of the individual doctors who work extremely hard to make the health service work.

I accordingly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to assure the House that he is aware of the way in which the survey was conducted, and that the questions were weighted. I also ask him to assure the House that he has been in touch with health authorities and GP representatives to hear their side of the distorted arguments that have been presented.

11.2 am

It is a pleasure to address the House on matters of substance, even though the debate is based on a survey which—here I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason)—has less substance than the issues themselves.

Had I not been aware of the contents of the survey and their lack of credibility, my hon. Friend would have done the House and me a service by analysing them. I shall deal with that matter in due course.

In general terms, our family doctor service is second to none. That is true of the country as a whole and I believe it to be true of Devon and Cornwall too. I can reassure general practitioners that the Government place a high value on them, to the extent that we are building a primary-care-led national health service based on general practice, which is a fundamental change. We are committed to removing obstacles that may inhibit delivery of the services that GPs work so hard to provide.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay asked me to make sure that I was aware of what was happening in Cornwall and Devon and was personally familiar with the views of GPs and health authorities there. I am aware of them, not only from what I hear at the Department but at first hand, because one of the first visits I undertook on being appointed to my post was to GP practices in Exeter and Truro, where I was impressed by the enthusiasm and dedication of all those whom I met.

Those doctors proceed with enthusiasm and dedication despite the stresses and strains of their working life, which, I readily acknowledge, are not unusual in a time of change such as that which we have asked GPs to accept. What I found in Devon and Cornwall was not very different from what I found elsewhere. There are stresses and strains, but they are being dealt with.

Much of the debate today has centred on out-of-hours work, and it may be helpful if I say a few words about that. Much work has already been done to deal with the concerns that GPs have raised and which the Liberal Democrats have mentioned today, some of which were highlighted in the Devon and Cornwall survey. The new arrangements for GP out-of-hours care, recently accepted in full by the British Medical Association, will ease the burden on GPs—one of the points made forcefully by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor).

The proposals are designed to encourage GPs to co-operate more in providing out-of-hours care. I know, for example, that the South and West Devon health commission is negotiating with the local medical committee and local GPs to facilitate GP co-operatives. Similar work is under way in Cornwall with the aim of securing a countywide arrangement.

The proposals will also offer special help to rural isolated GPs. Much has rightly been made of the problems faced by such GPs. It is important to put in context the funding for special arrangements, which I want to be delivered flexibly so that the particular interests of GPs in rural areas are duly noted.

I have seen from some press reports in Cornwall and Devon that there is a suggestion that the fund is merely to be divvied up among all doctors, at some £1,500 a head. That is reportedly a comment from a chairman of one local medical committee, but it is not our intention. No decision has yet been taken. Indeed, discussions will be taking place tomorrow between representatives of the general medical services committee and my departmental officials. I hope that we can come to a solution that will adequately recognise the special burdens imposed on doctors in rural areas.

The new settlement will also encourage patients to make more appropriate use of GP services, which I acknowledge is important. I cannot quite understand the idea that the patients charter has suddenly led to a new tranche of demand that did not exist previously. I do not imagine that, in the isolated rural cottages of Cornwall and Devon, the first thing that someone does at 3 am when he is feeling ill is pick up a copy of the patients charter and decide how to proceed.

Frankly, many of the arguments to the effect that the patients charter is provoking the difficulties now facing GPs in relation to out-of-hours calls are fanciful. It is right that patients should understand what they can expect from their GP services, but the charter acknowledges that patients have to exercise their rights responsibly when approaching their GPs.

Local initiatives are already under way. In June 1995, before we reached the settlement, the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority produced a leaflet entitled "Changes to Emergency GP Services", which was directed at patients. It was distributed to every GP practice in the county. I am extremely anxious to secure a campaign conducted in conjunction with the medical profession to ensure that the public is well aware of how they should properly use GP services to reduce the personal out-of-hours work load of GPs.

I deal now with some of the points about increased bureaucracy and paperwork. I assure the House that we are making strenuous efforts to reduce the weight of bureaucracy on GPs. The Liberal Democrats are, I am sure, well aware of the recent efficiency scrutiny entitled "Patients not Paper", which was carried out by a team that included four GPs—so there was a practical input into the study—and two primary care managers. The result was a number of recommendations, most of which will be fully implemented as soon as possible and, likely as not, by the end of next year.

I should like to highlight three points. There will be a reduction in claim forms by 1,700 per average practice, which is a tremendous clear-out. The bureaucracy associated with GP health promotion schemes will be cut, reducing data requirements from 122 to eight items. The flow of mail into practices will also be reduced, and the quality of communications will be improved.

I well understand that, as we seek to make the health service more accountable, there can be a natural accretion of bureaucracy, which Ministers occasionally have to curb. We intend that there will be less mail demanding statistics from GPs when he or she opens their surgery door in the morning and looks through the mail.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the information technology initiative in south Devon, which will mean that, by 1997, 80 per cent. of GPs will be on line in a health network? That too is intended to reduce bureaucracy, because it will be possible to gather statistics centrally—information relating to individual health care will be transmitted on that network. Does he not agree that to reach the target of 80 per cent. by 1997 will be quite an achievement?

I am pleased to hear that. That scheme is part of a national initiative. Introducing technology to reduce paperwork is extremely important. Indeed, it will do more than reduce the paperwork—it will free more practice staff to provide additional support.

I am delighted to hear what my hon. Friend says and to tell him that, as part of a national initiative, that scheme is playing its part. More than £242 million was spent in 1989–90, and more than £542 million last year—more than double—on staff, nurses and other support, including technology, which illustrates our commitment to primary care. So my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay is quite right: IT is one area in which there is substantially increasing support.

In Cornwall in particular, considerable financial support has been given by the family health services authority for the improvement of GP premises by means of grants totalling £300,000 in 1994–95 and by the commitment of £250,000 for 1995–96.

Recruitment is extremely important. I acknowledge that the Government must keep it under observation, and, where there are concerns, must address them. There are some valid concerns about GP recruitment. I readily acknowledge that there has been a decline in the number of trainees in recent years. There are a number of reasons for that.

One is that, with the reduction in junior doctors' hours in hospitals, there are more places available in the hospital sector than there are ultimately in general practice. However, there were 1,400 trainees throughout England in April 1995, which is still a significantly higher number than is needed to sustain the number of GPs overall. Of those, 243 were in the south and west region—the highest number of trainees in any region in England.

I notice that the hon. Member for Truro said that, on average—I think that he used this figure—there are four or five applicants for every post. If that is so, and they are well qualified, that is a good thing. It is better than the old days, when sometimes there were 120 applicants for every post—most of them not able to get jobs.

I agree that a balance must be struck. We must be concerned to ensure that the GP environment will attract top-flight people and be flexible, to reflect the point rightly made by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) that, considering the percentage of women entering the profession—51 per cent. of students are female—it is important that we have a practical understanding of how that percentage will operate in the work force, and what flexible arrangements we will have to put in hand. There is a real work force issue that needs to be addressed, and work needs to be done.

As for specific recruitment difficulties in the south and west and in Devon, I can tell the House that a young GP self-help support group has been set up, through which newly qualified partners can offer help and support to each other. In Cornwall, funding has been made available for an advisory service for new GPs, whereby all new doctors are contacted by a doctor in another part of Cornwall who can act as their mentor and confidant. So at that important moment when doctors are embarking on general practice, support is available. I welcome such initiatives, especially in Devon and Cornwall.

Throughout the country, we want closer working between new health authorities and GPs, and there is an opportunity for that as we move towards 1 April and the integrated health authorities come on stream. I know that Devon FHSA is encouraging GP practices to show innovation and initiative for the improvement of patient care. Good ideas are circulated to all practices to raise standards throughout the country. Cornwall FHSA meets quarterly with consortia of GPs—fundholding and non-fundholding—to discuss purchasing issues and address local problems, and I very much welcome that.

The Government have a policy of introducing fundholding, and it has been successful in Cornwall and Devon, but we do not take the view, and I am glad that the authorities in Cornwall and Devon do not either, that it should be done in isolation. I very much welcome what is in hand there to share best practice among fundholders and non-fundholders.

The hon. Members for Truro and for North Devon mentioned the patients charter. I very much support what the patients charter has done; it has brought substantial improvements to the quality of services provided for patients throughout the NHS, and in the areas represented by the hon. Gentlemen, because it has given a focal point and a target to which everybody needs to aspire. Three quarters of GPs now have their own practice charters—beyond what we publish on a national basis—or are in the course of developing them.

The patients charter is about doing things differently, thinking about patients as individuals, listening to what patients want, and providing a more patient-focused service. I should have thought that the whole House would welcome that. It need not necessarily cost money—in fact, doing things more efficiently and effectively can often save it. For example, looking back at the figures for 1994–95, GP fundholders in Devon achieved savings of almost £2 million in their budgets, which will be spent on other forms of patient care.

In April 1995, there were 11 GP fundholding practices in Cornwall FHSA, covering 24 per cent. of the population. Although take-up was slow—I understand the reasons: small practices and rural areas—it is moving ahead, and 36 per cent. of the population are likely to be served by fundholding practices from 1 April next year. In Devon, the equivalent figure is 44 per cent. of the population; an increase on the previous uptake of 14 per cent.

So I welcome the fact that, although some general practitioners may fill in surveys in a slightly different way, they are rather optimistically taking hold in Cornwall and Devon of the advantages offered by the Government's policy, and ensuring that they exercise their new freedoms and responsibilities for the benefit of their patients.

But the situation goes further: total fundholding projects are being considered in south and west Devon. A consortium of five practices is in its shadow year as total fundholders, and will go live from 1 April 1996. I very much welcome that as a way forward.

Much was made earlier in the debate about a survey. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay told us a little about it. I would like to tell the House yet more about it, because clearly my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) understood perfectly well that the survey was not politically motivated. None the less, they might be interested in knowing its genesis. In fact, it was a style survey which came from something called the "Health Campaign Pack" published by the Liberal Democrats. It explains how to conduct surveys. It is a jolly interesting style.

rose—

I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to tell us how well he followed the template when I have at least gone some way into the rather interesting territory that it explores.

The pack explains how to carry out surveys. It says:

"In particular, the survey should publicise results which show opposition to the Government's policies and support for our alternatives."

Well, that is rather interesting—hardly the detached exercise that Liberal Democrat Members were trying to suggest.

I have read the survey, and I have also read the style guide. It is interesting that the survey compares exactly with the style suggested. It says:

"Nora Batty and the Liberal Democrat team wrote to local doctors and dentists—the people in the front-line caring for patients".

It is some sort of "Last of the Summer Wine" style—or, perhaps, in the Devon and Cornwall area, it is "Last of the Summer Cider". The key responses all assume a result. They include:

"Eighty per cent. of local doctors think the Government's record on the NHS is either bad or very bad."

Stamped across the key responses is the phrase:

"Insert your own figures."

Does the interesting document from which my hon. Friend is quoting advise local Liberal Democrats that the survey slips and questionnaires should be accompanied by a health warning?

I think the document comes with its own health warning. I was interested to read the style questionnaire. It mirrors precisely the questionnaire that was sent out in Devon and Cornwall. The Liberal Democrats take some pride in that. Although the report was supposed to be detached, the House will understand its purpose and genesis.

I know that the hon. Member for North Cornwall wishes to make a few remarks, so I will conclude by reiterating the Government's commitment to a primary-care-led NHS. It is all about decision-making. That is what our policies have facilitated. The ability of doctors to decide what should be done for their patients is as relevant in Cornwall and Devon as in the rest of the country. Doctors are taking up that initiative with vigour.

I take this opportunity to thank GPs in Devon and Cornwall from the Dispatch Box. I understand that they face challenging and difficult times as more responsibility is given to them. To judge from what they tell me—they are seldom slow to express their views—although there are challenges and issues that we still need to resolve, and I hope shall resolve, they understand that the Government have put them in a leading position in the NHS and given them responsibilities that reflect their professional skills as never before. That is the basis on which we move towards a primary-care-led NHS.

There is one point in the survey with which I agree. The report says that actions speak louder than words. I suggest to the House that the actions of the Government in putting right the difficulties that general practice faces speak far more loudly than the words in the survey.

11.21 am

My colleagues and I are grateful to the Minister for 94 per cent.—a rough figure—of his speech, in which he referred to the substance of the issue. We endorse the points he made about the dedicated service that GPs give in Devon and Cornwall, as they do in other parts of the country.

The Minister is obviously better briefed by his Department than by Conservative central office. The report to which he referred was published after our survey. It was therefore entitled to take our survey as an example of what could be done in other parts of the country. The Minister got it the wrong way round.

Let us get back to the substance. Several hon. Members have attacked the survey this morning. That is not our purpose. We wish to examine the feelings and anxieties among a key part of the health service of this nation. GPs are the gatekeepers for the whole health service, perhaps especially so in more remote rural areas.

That was recognised in the White Paper published last week by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It said:

"Most health care is provided through primary care, especially by GPs. We recognise that rural doctors can have smaller practices based in more than one location and may therefore need additional financial support. A number of allowances are payable to support GPs in rural areas. The rural practice payment scheme, for example, reflects the costs and pressures of practices in more sparsely populated areas."

Precisely. I accept that the Government have endorsed our view that rural practices have special needs. That is at the centre of the debate today, and at the centre of our survey.

The points that the Minister made about fundholding practices are similarly well recognised. It is more difficult to qualify for fundholding in rural areas. That is one of the problems that lie behind the resources problem. I noticed that one hon. Member, in a Freudian slip, referred to fund-raising practices. There is a feeling among many GPs in smaller practices that they now have to devote so much time to finding ways to fund their activities that they cannot give so much attention as they would like to their patients.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I have very little time, thanks to the hon. Gentleman's late intervention.

The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) referred to recruitment. I was glad to hear the Minister respond positively on the issue. We all recognise that there is a difficulty with recruitment. The hon. Member for St. Ives may not have been in Cornwall when our survey was published.

One of the most fascinating things was that, contrary to our expectations, a number of authorities and GPs said that, in several respects, we underrated the severity of the crisis. The family health services authority in Cornwall, for the first time ever, is having to recruit in other EU member states for GPs. That has never happened in Cornwall before, although I understand that it has happened in other parts of the country. That is a simple litmus test of the severity of the recruitment problem.

In the few minutes that I have left, I wish to underline the views that GPs have expressed to us, to the public and to other GPs. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) may not know that Dr. Green, the local medical committee chairman for Devon, is one of the principal spokesmen for the profession. I understand that he comes from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

In response to our survey—not as part of it—he said:

"In my own town, Paignton, there have been resignations from two practices in the last year and a further early retirement for stress induced health. Eleven and 12-hour days are commonplace, followed by a night on call and another 11-hour day. The level of alertness required by this special profession cannot be sustained over time."

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

No. The hon. Gentleman intervenes late in the debate, having arrived late. I have only three minutes left.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it appropriate for an hon. Member to identify a particular constituent and not allow his Member of Parliament to respond, when—

Order. It is perfectly proper.

Dr. Green also said:

"GPs work within a contract which allows new work to be added relentlessly to the working day. In recent years, we have seen Health Promotion, Early Discharge Schemes, annual reports and returns, and medical audit. No money has followed the patient into this work to allow extra staff to be employed, and where fees have been increased, the money is insidiously clawed back through the pool payment scheme. Furthermore, GPs have no ownership of this work, as the value to patients has yet to be shown."

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I hope that it is more genuine than the previous one.

It certainly is. I spoke to Dr. Philip Green yesterday evening, and I want to protest at the misrepresentation of his views.

That was no more a point of order than the previous one. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are means of making such protestations which are in order. I hope that he will not trouble the Chair any further with bogus points of order.

The chairman of the LMC in Cornwall, Dr. Andy Stewart, whom I know well, a young and dedicated doctor, has written as follows, since seeing the situation develop:

"To expect one doctor to work all day, all night and then all the next day, is totally unreasonable and just plain irresponsible. Exhausted and tired doctors should not be allowed within a mile of a sick patient. Tired doctors can make mistakes and mistakes in our trade may just turn out to be fatal. An airline pilot or bus driver would not be allowed to work for longer than 24 hours without a break because of the risk of endangering life through tiredness. So why are we so superhuman that we don't need sleep and a break from incessant stress?"

Another doctor from Devonport in Plymouth—not a rural area, but he suffers the particular stresses and strains of the inner city—says:

"In the past few years expectations have risen, fuelled by the Government's 'charter mentality'. This expectation has come from both the public and from management, which sometimes engage themselves in doing things of dubious value … At the end of the day, the day's work isn't finished, and the return to a normal life is impossible. You can imagine what it's like telling a disappointed son/daughter that you can't take them to scouts, guides or whatever. It is like letting down the other half of you."

This is not just a survey. It clearly contains the outspoken, but perfectly proper, views of a dedicated profession in a part of the country where one might think that the problems are more easily resolved than in the major cities.

We are grateful to the Minister for his positive reply to our debate today, and I know that the general practitioners in Devon and Cornwall will be as well. But the most important function of the House is to ensure that we can articulate in a public place at a national level the concerns of those who serve us so well. I hope that this morning's debate has done that, and I hope too that we will see real progress in the directions to which the Minister referred, because it cannot come too soon.

Community Service

11.29 am

I begin this morning by saying how delighted I am to find that the Minister due to respond to today's debate is my hon. and most excellent Friend, the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). He and I spent a happy and, I hope, useful year in harness at the Department of National Heritage, and I am delighted that we are yoked together again today. I congratulate him on his latest promotion. His previous post was Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, but I have no doubt that the Sovereign's real loss will be the nation's real gain.

I also take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), for all the care and attention that he gave to every issue that came his way, and to salute him, my noble Friend the Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for their wholehearted and active commitment to the cause of community service, and their ready recognition of the importance of volunteering to the well-being of every community in the land.

The scale of volunteering in Britain is impressive. Four years ago, the Volunteer Centre UK, the national development agency for volunteering, commissioned a survey aimed at providing an up-to-date picture of the extent and nature of volunteering within the United Kingdom, and a comparison with the 1981 national survey of volunteering.

The latest survey showed that some 51 per cent. of respondents had taken part in at least one organised voluntary activity during the previous 12 months, showing that up to 23 million adults may be involved in formal volunteering each year. It also showed that 31 per cent. had volunteered at least once a month and 22 per cent. had volunteered in the previous week, suggesting that in any one week as many as 10 million adults may be involved in organised voluntary activity of one sort or another; an exciting thought—more people volunteering than watching "Pride and Prejudice" on television.

Encouragingly, the survey showed that the proportion of the population involved had risen from 44 per cent. at the beginning of the 1980s to 51 per cent. at the beginning of the 1990s. Fund raising was the most common type of activity, and sports and exercise, children's education and health and social welfare were the most common areas for volunteering.

Most volunteers became involved because they were asked to help or because the organisation concerned was connected with their needs or interests. That said, a significant number of people simply volunteered for altruistic reasons. Three quarters of the respondents felt that volunteers offered something to society that could never be provided by the state. In addition to organised activities, more than three quarters were involved in informal voluntary activities. We need to salute every one of those people and recognise their impact on the quality of life of their fellow citizens.

I very much welcome my hon. Friend's initiative in bringing the issue of volunteering before the House and I regret that a constituency engagement means that I will not be able to stay for the whole debate. My hon. Friend may know that, as long ago as 1989, I proposed a motion in the House to promote the concept of active citizenship, linked to what I described as community self-help. Does my hon. Friend agree that momentum on the issue has been slightly lost in the meantime and that it is a concept wholly in tune with Conservative philosophy and the needs of today?

I agree totally with my hon. Friend. It is a philosophy consistent with a Conservative approach which suggests the responsibility of the individual, working from the bottom up, harnessing a community for the better good of all. I hope that today's debate will add extra impetus and momentum to the movement that my hon. Friend was attempting to initiate back in the late 1980s, and in which I believe Members on both sides of the House took a serious interest this summer when we had the all-party parliamentary hearings on citizens service back in June. I hope that today's debate will also galvanise the Government into a renewed commitment to exploring every aspect of ensuring that we become a nation full of active citizens. I salute my hon. Friend for his contribution.

The contribution of volunteers in general is literally priceless. The qualities that they bring to their work cannot be paid for with any sum of money and any attempt to replace it with paid work would change its nature, replacing a relationship based on responsibility and mutual aid with one based on financial gain.

But the fact that voluntary work is priceless should not blind us to the significant contribution that it makes to the British economy. The Volunteer Centre recently had a go at assessing the economic worth of volunteering in the United Kingdom. It reckons, taking the hours worked and the rate for the job, that formal volunteering is worth in the region of £25 billion a year, and informal volunteering an additional £16 billion—£41 billion all told.

Highlighting the significant contribution that volunteering makes to the economic life of the country can help raise the profile of volunteering. That approach can also open the door to the recognition of community groups that may be viewed as less significant because they have a low cash turnover. If the amount of voluntary effort involved is recognised in terms of a monetary equivalent, the significance to the local economy becomes more apparent. The practical application of such a shift in awareness could be a widening use of volunteer time as a form of matching funds for Government, the European Union and private grants.

I think that I am right in saying that, at present, grant schemes such as Rural Action and the European Union's Leader 2 programme, which include such a provision, are the exception rather than the rule, possibly penalising groups which are volunteer rich but cash poor.

Assessing the economic value of volunteering is also part of wider moves to encourage Governments to include in national statistics indicators of factors which affect a nation's quality of life, but which are not usually recorded. Agenda 21, the action plan agreed by the 1992 Earth summit in Rio, called for unpaid productive work to be included in national accounts and economic statistics, alongside measures of environmental value.

The scale of volunteering in the United Kingdom is impressive, the scope is quite mind-blowing, and I sometimes think that the epicentre of all this activity must be the City of Chester. Anyone who witnessed the range and quality of community activities that are part and parcel of everyday life in my constituency would not think it hyperbolic of me to describe Chester as the volunteering capital of the kingdom.

Whether it is the Rotarians organising car runs to take visually impaired people to hospital; the great Round Table toddle that took place on our racecourse this weekend when young men, with their wives and children, took part in a sponsored toddle to raise literally thousands of pounds for children in need; the Blacon project, taking youngsters on challenging, character-building adventure expeditions, or one of our several magnificent operatic societies, providing first-class entertainment at an old people's home, the quantity and quality of community commitment in Chester is incredible.

I attended the United Charities fair at the town hall on Saturday and they were all there—from the Royal National Lifeboat Institution to the Chester Childbirth Trust. And there on the stage was Mrs. Banks, sorting it and all of us out, as ever—certainly as she has been doing for the past 27 years. As a nation, we need to cherish Mrs. Banks and her kind and to let them know how much we value them and how greatly we are in their debt. We also need to ensure that there is a well-stocked bank of Bankses on which to draw in the years ahead.

The changing nature of our society means that that will not be easy. A generation or two ago, a successful person such as a solicitor, like my father or grandfather, could get to work at 9 am, leave at 5 pm, run a tight ship and run it well. Today, to be a success in business, commerce or the professions, one will regularly be at work at 8 am and not leave until 7 pm. Then, quite rightly, one will be expected and will want to give a commitment of quality time to one's family in the evening. That means that it is not easy to find time to be a school governor or a special constable, a voluntary sports leader or to organise an outing for a housebound neighbour.

The problem is not unique to Britain. Recently, several hundred Round Tablers and others from around the world came to Chester for the World Council of Men's Service Clubs—Chester was obviously the natural location for such a gathering. The message was the same. An increasingly competitive commercial world places real strains on the amount of time available for community commitment.

We have to remember that a higher standard of living does not always, or necessarily, go hand in hand with a better quality of life. Hon. Members will have read with concern the recent news from the Girl Guides Association. Guide and Brownie groups are being forced to close because changing social patterns have led to a shortage of Guide leaders and Brown Owls. Women who juggle careers with bringing up a family cannot spare several hours a week to prepare for meetings and organise pack outings and activities, which is one of the reasons why national membership has fallen by about 64,000 in the past 12 years. I do not want to be alarmist. We still have 750,000 Guides and Brownies in Britain and to me they represent all that is best in our society.

In a more challenging world, we need more volunteers, which is just one of the reasons why we need to broaden the appeal of volunteering. Research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others shows that the typical volunteer is a middle-aged, middle-class, middle-income, middle Briton—looking in the mirror, I can hardly envisage anything more attractive—but we are missing out on the potential of bringing more unemployed, disabled and older people and more people from a range of ethnic groups into the world of volunteering.

Because the Government are rightly apprised of the challenges and the potential of life in the world of volunteering, they have established their "Make a Difference" initiative. When I asked the Minister's predecessor about that on 9 March, he promised the House some exciting things. Indeed, on 6 June, the Home Secretary gave some ambitious undertakings, which coincided with the publication of "Make a Difference: an outline for volunteering strategy for the UK". He promised us "Youth Challenge", so that by the end of 1997 a voluntary opportunity would be in place for all 15 to 25-year-olds who wished to volunteer—an ambitious target and there are only 25 months to run. He promised the creation of new, local volunteering development agencies to cover those parts of the country where no such agencies exist and to ensure the match between those ready to volunteer and those organisations that are looking for voluntary help.

As I am sure the Minister recognises, because he has a keen sense of history as well as being incredibly up to date—he is one of those people who could be described as being as modern as tomorrow, with a lot of time for yesterday—that this is the anniversary of the battle of Agincourt. I know that he is a man for the Churchillian flourish and so I am hoping that "Action this day" can be his motto. I trust that he will be able to give us a positive progress report on the Government's initiative. Making a noise is easy, but making a difference is what counts.

Obstacles still stand in the way of people who want to volunteer. Those include simple ignorance—people do not know what is going on—through to bad practice by volunteer-involving organisations and poorly framed or applied regulations. I am glad that we were able to make progress to ensure that the job seekers allowance is not a barrier to volunteering. A number of the "Make a Difference" team's recommendations deal with that area and I must draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister recommendation 32, which urges on Government Departments the need to consider the impact of legislation and regulations on volunteering, and recommendations 53 and 56, which deal with the need for support for the infrastructure that promotes volunteering and good practice.

There is much that Government can do—perhaps the best thing is to get out of the way. The best in volunteering happens from the bottom up, not the top down. Obviously, the Government cannot do everything and nor should they. They must not obstruct; they can encourage, enable and facilitate. But the real work and the best work is done by real people—the best people, on the ground, quite literally in some cases.

The Community Service Volunteers tell the story of Winton primary school in London's Kings Cross area where, before the gates open to admit the first child in the morning, the playground must be scoured for condoms and syringes discarded from the night before. CSV has a model volunteers scheme, which has brought 50 office workers and local residents into the school on a regular basis to listen to children read, help with art projects and, in a sense, truly to live out the old African proverb that "it takes a whole village to raise a child".

I hope that other hon. Members this morning will talk of what we learnt during the all-party parliamentary hearings on citizen's service, as well as marvelling at the amount of work that is being undertaken and relishing the potential. What became clear to me from the hearings upstairs in June was that there can be no single model for a national or local citizen's service scheme. Diversity, choice and flexibility will all be essential, as will leadership.

On both sides of the House, hon. Members recognise that volunteering is invaluable. It may also be the key to reawakening that sense of community that so many people feel that we have lost. It is easy to bemoan the collapse of community values, mourn the demise of the extended family and anatomise the frailty of the nuclear family, but what does that do except to make us feel sad? If the extended family has all but disappeared and the nuclear family is not what it used to be, perhaps the time has come to attempt to reinvent community.

I want to suggest one simple way of going about it, starting at street level. I want a new initiative to encourage residents, on their streets, in their estates and in their blocks of flats, to get together and exchange details of how they can volunteer for their neighbours and of what help they need—from baby sitting to help with gardening and from shopping to household repairs. There are neighbours on every street who could offer to help and neighbours who need their assistance. In many communities, however, there is no opportunity for neighbours to get together to talk and match their needs with volunteer residents. It is a scheme for mutual aid on one's doorstep.

The "meet your street" initiative will aim to stimulate and support the informal neighbourhood volunteering that is the cornerstone of any thriving community. With the Volunteer Centre UK, my plan is to develop a series of pilot meet your street projects with the aim of taking the scheme nationwide during volunteer's week at the beginning of next June.

Given that Britain's newest television soap opera, "Hollyoaks" on Channel 4 on Monday evenings, is set in Chester—they just cannot keep away—I am not surprised to see that it has already been described in one newspaper as "Neighbours meets the Street". I hope that it will not be trivialised because my own informal pilot study in Chester suggests that it could work.

I took a terraced street in my constituency and found living in it an interesting mix: several elderly people living alone, a single parent, some young couples and several students. They were all on nodding acquaintance but none had met. Through the good offices of the local vicar, who lived at the end of the street, we got together and the people on the street found out what they could do for one another.

One of the young men admitted that all he could do was change light bulbs and washers—something that the elderly lady who lived right next door to him and to whom he had never spoken before could not do. She said that she could make a good apple pie and now she does just that for the young man in return for his skills as an amateur electrician and plumber. That may seem modest but the vicar rightly reminded me of the wonderful line of William Blake

"He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars".

Those neighbours, in their own way, are doing something for their mutual advantage and for the betterment of the street as a whole. On a larger scale, the statutory services are never going to be able to provide more than one or two visits from a midwife or health visitor when a newborn baby arrives in the community but halfway down that street there was a grandmother whose own grandchildren live abroad. She and the lone parent and her child have met and invented a new sort of extended family for themselves. I am literally making a speech about motherhood and apple pie but I am also making a practical suggestion designed to deal with a real problem, a solution to which there is a genuine longing.

Today's newspapers are full of concern about communities in crisis. They are also full of material taken from a draft of the Audit Commission's report into policing. As part of the report, the Audit Commission asked the public in a survey what changes they believed would make their neighbourhoods safer. The four main changes sought by the public were more responsible parents, better-lit streets, more closed circuit television and more contact with neighbours. That is what people want; let us trust the people.

A decade or so ago the home watch scheme was launched in my part of Cheshire and from one small pilot project, that scheme has swept the country. There are now thousands of home watch schemes making neighbourhoods safer all across the land. Perhaps the "meet your street" initiative will take off in the same way; I hope so. Here at Westminster, we are the people who make a noise. I am glad that today we have the opportunity to salute the millions of our fellow citizens who are volunteers committed to community service. They are the ones who make a difference.

11.53 am

I am delighted to be called to speak so early as it gives me the first opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on his entertaining and thoughtful speech. His talents could be well used in the new soap opera set in Chester if he is not careful.

I want to stress the importance of community service set against the background of the changes that we are experiencing in our working patterns. I suspect that there is a widely held belief that if we could only modernise our industry and commerce and bridge the skills gap, we could somehow return, as if by magic, to a world of full employment. However, one of the products of the global marketplace has been the emergence of new technologies that generate new wealth but do not necessarily give rise to new employment.

The productivity revolution that is happening in the United Kingdom means that more and more processes are being undertaken by fewer and fewer people. While fast-growing sectors of industry and commerce are predicted to create nearly 2 million more jobs for highly skilled people, they will not be able to absorb all those available for work. Naturally, those with the least skills will have the least chance of employment. The Dahrendorf report on wealth creation states:

"comparative growth is no longer a sufficient condition for a satisfactory level of employment."

One of the threats to social cohesion in our society is the way in which the unemployed are becoming excluded from that society. In the new climate of job insecurity, there is greater risk that the exclusion of sectors of society will rise. With jobs for life disappearing and part-time, temporary or varying jobs becoming the rule for many, uncertainty is spreading.

Improvements in education and training are vital to sustain the high degree of flexibility that we now require. Individuals will increasingly be self-employed and will have to cope with periods of unemployment. Many will lose their hold, first on the labour market, and then on participation in our societies and communities.

A growing underclass is emerging, consisting of people who live lives of destitution and dependence on welfare payments and who become detached from society, fragmenting the social cohesion so essential to a democratically governed community such as ours. It is against that backdrop that we should measure the importance of citizen involvement in public service. The threat to social cohesion is real, but can citizens service turn it into an opportunity?

The hon. Member for City of Chester mentioned the parliamentary hearings on citizens service last June. I was glad to have had the opportunity to chair one of those hearings. We tried to investigate the concepts behind citizens service, a scheme to enable young people in particular to give a period of their lives to community service.

I and my colleagues heard evidence from a wide variety of agencies and I would like to mention in particular the Community Service Volunteers, who told us that nearly two thirds of young people surveyed nationally supported the voluntary national scheme. That is an interesting counterpoint to the comment of the hon. Member for City of Chester that 51 per cent. of young people are already involved. Clearly, more can be done if two thirds are willing to be involved.

Let us not underestimate the importance of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the economic worth of a volunteer service but a scheme such as was promoted by the Community Service Volunteers could provide respite for some 8.6 million single-handed carers. It could provide a scheme which could help the 2 million or so primary school pupils who suffer from poor reading skills.

Over the decades in my constituency we have established the Eastleigh Council for Community Service, which has set the standard throughout our region for what can be done to help the elderly and the infirm, give respite support for carers and provide a wide range of voluntary services across the community. It not only provides services, but co-ordinates and organises the volunteer reservoir of talent just waiting to be tapped in the community. The example in my constituency is a fine one which can and is being followed in the rest of Hampshire and throughout the country.

We also heard from a number of organisations during the parliamentary hearings. We heard from the Prince's Trust about how it organised local projects which developed core life skills and confidence in their participants. Most importantly, since many of the volunteers on the Prince's Trust scheme were unemployed—about 75 per cent. of them—the programmes that they organised led to the development not only of life and social skills but of job skills.

We also heard from the St. John's Ambulance Brigade, which is engaged in a very different kind of volunteering. Although it provides some 4 million hours of first aid work per year, it selects its volunteers very carefully because of the responsibility that they must undertake. Such volunteers are given well-planned training that contributes to national vocational qualifications. That integration of training with volunteering is important.

As I listened to evidence from a wide variety of volunteers, it became clear to me—and, I am sure, to other hon. Members—that we should explore a range of options. We need leadership—not a large bureaucracy; we do not want a countrywide super-quango—to set national standards and guidelines, and to draw on the work of existing schemes. Existing best practice should be used and promulgated.

Volunteering should involve challenging and responsible activities, and volunteers should play their role in identifying the tasks on offer. As I have said, national standards should be set, especially in regard to time commitment and project objectives. There should be a two-way debate between volunteers and those using their services. We need to set ground rules to deal with the problems of job substitution and exploitation; and we need to overcome fears that volunteers are taking work from paid people. That need not be so. We must set such ground rules if the scheme is to succeed, gather pace and tackle the hundreds of thousands of opportunities for volunteers described so eloquently by the hon. Member for City of Chester.

Much of the evidence presented at the parliamentary hearings supported my views and those of my party. We Liberal Democrats proposed the establishment of a community volunteer scheme in 1993, in a paper entitled "Facing Up to the Future". Our aim is to break down social barriers, to encourage more citizen involvement in public service, to promote the development of social skills and a sense of responsibility and—most important—to help unemployed people to learn skills and boost their self-esteem. Our scheme is targeted particularly at young people, so many of whom find themselves in a low-skill unemployment cycle.

Our proposed service would offer any individual, but especially young people, the opportunity to give one or two years of community service in environmental projects such as housing renovation, or in crime prevention and social services—supplementing, but not replacing, existing jobs. It would be promoted and funded by central Government, in partnership with the private sector. Local authorities and voluntary organisations would organise the scheme.

Training is an essential complement, promoting employability and flexibility. In due course, we would expect the scheme to be widely adopted, and the experience gained from it to be valued by employers and employees alike. We want recognition of the value of community service to stretch beyond its immediate beneficiaries.

A recent CSV report estimated the net costs of such a national scheme—taking into account the savings from increased employment, a resulting reduction in crime and other social factors—at some £300 million a year. That, however, is a small sum—as the hon. Member for City of Chester pointed out—in comparison with the billions of pounds of economic worth that we can gain from volunteer service.

Echoing the hon. Gentleman, I too call on the Minister to take action this day: to make not just a gesture, but a real commitment. If we are to translate what is, after all, a sound policy that is generally supported in the House and the country into firm, positive action, surely such an investment is both worth while and necessary.

12.4 pm

I declare an interest: I am a trustee of Community Service Volunteers, which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House in this welcome debate.

I do not propose to describe, yet again, the campaign for a national community service with which I have been associated for some 25 years—partly because the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) has already made a powerful case for it, and partly because when I served on the Speaker's commission on citizenship under Lord Weatherill, we made a firm case for the value of involving young people in the community in which they live, giving them an opportunity to accept and exercise responsibility at an early age and thus to become part of a mature and responsible citizenry. I wish merely to bolster the excellent speech of my hon. Friend—my good friend—the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). I shall have no difficulty in remembering his constituency in future—not that we are given much of a chance to forget it at any time.

Volunteering is about a very unfashionable word: it is about love. Love is the one commodity that professional statutory services have great difficulty in delivering; indeed, they must be extremely wary about delivering it. For numerous perfectly sound reasons, professional social workers—and, increasingly, teachers and other professionals—are being taught to distance themselves from the individual, subjective commitment to another person that is best defined as love. Families are being so damaged by all kinds of stress and instability—divorce, separation and every variety of exploitation of one individual by another—that a huge gap is developing between those who have been fortunate enough to experience love and those who have not.

Hon. Members must ask themselves what it profits a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul. Some 750,000 children in the United Kingdom have no contact with their fathers. That bare statistic, which could be multiplied in many other contexts, demonstrates just how bereft many people are growing up to be. Single mothers are being categorised as an anti-social group, but we should remember that the majority acquire that status as what middle-class families would call children: they are 16, 17 or 18. Most middle-class parents who look forward to their children entering the labour market, fully qualified, at the age of 25 still regard them as children, whatever they may say to them privately.

As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester pointed out, many of those "children" who are struggling to bring up their own children alone need, more than anything else, an individual who will take an interest in them, care for them with experience and love and sustain them through all the vicissitudes. Volunteers can do that; no statutory service can conceivably do it.

Before I am accused of being sentimental, let me say that the organisation of such a net—the tapping of a generation who have more time, often more disposable income, more knowledge, greater experience and more education than any previous generation and a great reservoir of capacity—is not cost free. The Government, in their splendid "Make a Difference" initiative, must remember that matching volunteers with those who could make use of them is expensive.

Vetting volunteers to ensure that they do not abuse their position is expensive. Information exchanges to bring the two sides together are expensive. If we are to move away from the disproportionately middle-class volunteer, we must consider more generously funding travel costs.

If we are to make sense of the changing pattern of employment over a lifetime, we must reconsider the social security rules that limit the amount of voluntary work that people can do—people who are killing themselves in their spare time trying to find jobs, sending out applications and so on, but who continue to be limited in the number of hours of voluntary work that they are allowed to do and the amount of notice that they must give—by what is increasingly in some parts of the country a myth: that looking for work means trudging the streets. It is actually a matter of computerised job applications and so on, which can be done at any time and should not be allowed to diminish the opportunity for voluntary work.

The Government—no other organisation in the country has the same capacity—have an enormous responsibility for ensuring that the biggest users of volunteers, the statutory services, make opportunities available. The tremendous variation in the use of volunteers between one health trust and another, one social services department and another and one Prison Service area and another, is inexplicable and inexcusable. How ridiculous.

If one director of social services, such as in Kent, finds that he can use every volunteer who offers, and enthusiastically endorses their use, why on earth do other directors of social services drag their feet? The Government can and should do more about that. I am delighted to gather—I hope that we shall hear more about it from the Minister—that Ministers have started to ask the services for which they are responsible to include in their annual reports the use that they make of volunteers. Paid volunteer organisers will make a difference out of all proportion to the cost of their salary.

The Meadowdale disaster, which commanded today's headlines, would have been less likely if volunteers had visited the home regularly. The director of social services for Kent says that when he sets up a Kent county council home somewhere and puts the notice outside saying "KCC home", it is as though he had thrown a moat round the home. Local residents say, "That is Kent county council; it is nothing to do with us" and they go nowhere near it. What a mistake.

We should ensure that residential homes set up by the Government to look after the most damaged people in our society welcome regular visits from volunteers to befriend not only residents but staff, who become isolated and prone to bad practice as a result.

Let me once again link commercial advantage with that outpouring of "voluntary love". During the recess, I accompanied a Department of Trade and Industry and Department for Education and Employment mission to South America, selling British education and training overseas. We got the message there that we get from Malaysia and other places: foreign students—who are enormously important to the commercial advantage of this country now and in the future, when they rise to important positions—are discouraged from coming to the United Kingdom because the British are so tremendously unwelcoming to them.

One of the things that we could and should do, and which the Government should seriously encourage higher education to do, is to set up a network of befrienders of foreign students. That would mean that, instead of sitting in some desolate bed-sitter in Earls Court, prey to every fundamentalist Muslim missionary who comes along, our Malaysian student friends would be able to get inside and see a home in Britain, not just once in their time here but regularly. The mutual advantage, which is the glory of volunteering, would spin off in straight commercial value to this country. That is yet another area in which opportunities for volunteering could and should be developed.

12.16 pm

The quality of the debate is a good example to the House. It is interesting to hear arguments made on both sides of the House about serious issues that affect our communities and families and individuals throughout the country.

I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on initiating the debate. In his introduction, he described with impressive clarity the impressive extent of volunteering. He referred to the altruism of volunteers and saluted their work; I join him in that. I am sorry that he did not mention the way in which anger, frustration and a determination to attack the ills of society lead many people into voluntary service. However, he acknowledged the need to galvanise the Government into action, and I shall say a little more about that in a moment.

The hon. Member for City of Chester was right to value the voluntary work of people who help with youth clubs or environmental improvements or help to raise money in other ways and, indeed, the work of magistrates and foster parents—many different groups in society which may not be thought of when we use the word "volunteer". However, that reality and the potential that lie beyond it should be recognised by the Government—for instance, through the benefit system. As the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, it is crazy and illogical to place obstacles in the way of unemployed people giving their time as volunteers. The objectives set out by the hon. Member for City of Chester will be achieved only if the Government help on that score.

Hon. Members may be aware of the recent report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which said that

"action needs to be taken to remove the barriers which prevent people on low incomes from getting involved in their local communities. This might include more payment of expenses and ensuring that regulations do not prevent people on unemployment or other state benefits from volunteering".

That argument was made with some strength to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People by the National Association of Volunteer Bureaux. I hope that the Minister will show some understanding of the problem when he replies to the debate and that Ministers will take notice of the evidence that the NAVB has produced, especially in a letter from the vice-chairman, Mrs. Eileen Wimbury, to the Minister, which describes, with the help of several case studies, some of the difficulties encountered by unemployed people. In her comments she makes a telling point when she says:

"However many such people are so afraid of losing their benefit that when they hear what they must do before volunteering they understandably decide not to take any further action. This is very much at odds with the Government's intention according to the Make a Difference strategy. Indeed a section of the Make a Difference Team's Report deals with the difficulties experienced by benefit recipients generally."

She goes on to point out that those problems have increased since incapacity benefit was introduced in April this year. Her letter continues:

"One of the difficulties apparent to us is that many Benefit Office staff have no conception of the difference between paid work and voluntary activity. However what concerns us even more is their lack of knowledge of the current regulations covering Incapacity Benefit."

That is an example of where the Government can make a difference by enabling people to volunteer. By a reorientation of the Government machine and the attitudes within it, they can demonstrate that volunteering is valued by the Government. I hope that we will hear something to the point and positive from the Minister.

The Rowntree report states that there is "no room for complacency", although it is recognised that many people wish to volunteer and could be encouraged to do so. Some changes, the report suggests

"might work against volunteering, such as the ageing population and the changing structures of the labour market and the family."

I hope that the Minister will respond to the challenge we are offered in the report, which states:

"The challenge for public policy makers and volunteer involving organisations is to anticipate the trends and take action to harness the positive effects on volunteering and reverse (or at least limit) the negative effects."

The Government's response to the "Make a Difference" initiative, which made 81 recommendations, has been, I regret, half-hearted. The response of the Home Secretary in a letter to hon. Members on 7 June was half-baked and feeble, and did not measure up to the quality of the report that stimulated the launch of the initiative a year before. We need more from the Government if we are to believe that—as the Home Secretary put it at the time—they are serious about releasing

"the huge untapped reservoir of Britons willing to volunteer their time to help in their communities."

The hon. Member for Mid-Kent was right to puncture the myth that a few words can solve the problems facing those who are willing to volunteer in their communities. He was right to ask the Minister to respond to the real challenges, and he was also right to pinpoint the responsibility of the Government, in view of the inexplicable and inexcusable problems caused by the practical obstacles within the health service and Government institutions to using the strengths of volunteers. We require not paragraphs in the annual reports of the organisations concerned, but a change in attitude through the Government machine and among Ministers, civil servants and those who now run a myriad of organisations at an arm's length—or further away—from Government responsibility. I refer not only to activities within the Prison Service, but to other agencies as well.

The youth challenge referred to by the Prime Minister has the date on it of 1997—a commitment carefully dated well beyond the next general election. In calling for action and not words, the hon. Member for City of Chester issued an embarrassing challenge to the Minister—a challenge that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have failed to meet.

I welcome the Minister to his first debate at the Dispatch Box, and I congratulate him on gaining his new responsibilities. I hope that he will show himself to be as able to respond to the debate as his hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester believed he would be. It would be a pleasure for us all if he were able to give us what senior Ministers have, so far, been unable to give us.

The hon. Member for City of Chester reflected Labour's thinking when he referred to the African proverb that it takes a whole village to bring up a child. But it does not help if the Government fail to provide enough huts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) was quick to point out. Incidentally, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Whips Office, and on her sterling work on the review of the relationship between the Government and the voluntary sector which was initiated by the Leader of the Opposition last year. I am sure that the strengths that she has shown in that work will be well to the fore in her work as a more silent member of the Opposition team.

Voluntary action can take a wide variety of forms and is nothing less than the expression of being a citizen and playing a part in one's community. That has been at the heart of the Leader of the Opposition's vision, and was so clearly a part of John Smith's vision before him. But I warn Ministers against the simplistic view common among Conservative Members—although I was glad not to have heard it voiced by Conservative Members today—that volunteering offers a cheap shortcut to saving money or evading the responsibilities of Government.

That approach was illustrated recently when a Minister said:

"Government values the voluntary sector—we want you to help us to achieve our objectives".

Another Minister turned the traditional relationship on its head, when he told a voluntary sector conference:

"We value your work—that is why we put seed money into the voluntary sector to help start up projects which the voluntary sector can then run on a permanent basis."

The traditional view was that through concerned citizens exposing need and taking positive action, the voluntary sector would pioneer work which would then be made universal by the state. That route gave us schools, hospitals, social care, youth clubs and so much more.

In a mature society, we need new approaches and the responsibility for the Government now is to explore the ways in which a genuine partnership can be created between the Government and the voluntary sector. In exploring the nature of that relationship, we have been conducting a series of meetings with the voluntary sector up and down the country. The meetings have exhibited a range of issues that concern the voluntary sector and in which the Government have a hand. The issues include the question of funding. The voluntary sector is concerned not just with the amounts of money, but with the bureaucracy that ties the time of those who need to apply for money. The bureaucracy means that those involved are unable to get on with their jobs or to harness the work of volunteers.

There is also the question of independence and accountability—a subject on which there have been some uncomfortable debates of late. It has been suggested that organisations that receive public money should not be free to criticise the Government. The voluntary sector needs to have the right to voice the concerns that it encounters in its work, even if that voice is sometimes uncomfortable for the Government. There is a need for consultation by central and local government to be more real and more participative. We need the subject of volunteering and volunteers to be better understood by the Government.

There is a need for the whole contract culture to be re-examined, because there is evidence that it is constraining the capacity of the voluntary sector and creating the wrong relationships, rather than the right ones. There is the question of the capacity for innovation by the voluntary sector, and of how the Government help self-help groups and structures, including the relationship of social companies with overview bodies. The burdens of trusteeship are, in many cases, discouraging people from taking part in the work of major voluntary organisations.

All those matters are important and each could demand a debate. But it is against that background that we need to create a new partnership between the Government and the voluntary sector. That partnership must recognise not only the essential independence of charities and voluntary organisations and their capacity to innovate but the long-term continuity that many offer in the areas of service to which they bring a passionate commitment.

I see no evidence that the Government have yet realised the damage that they have done or the need for Ministers to change their attitudes. I pay tribute to those in the voluntary sector who responded to the Prime Minister's call and joined the working party for the "Make a Difference" initiative. It is a pity that there has not been a real response from the Government. The working party was able to make some 81 proposals, but a detailed strategy for the development of the relationship between the Government and the voluntary sector has not been produced. Perhaps the Minister will give some specific and positive commitments today on those 81 recommendations, and those would not come a moment too soon.

Rather than a fresh initiative, what is needed is a root-and-branch change in the attitude of the Government. We need not just a gesture from the Prime Minister, but an understanding of the voluntary sector that runs through every Department and organ of Government, local agencies and local government. Extra money from the lottery charities board is welcome, but there must be real recognition that voluntary organisations are partners in society—partners whose views are sometimes different, whose independence must be respected, and whose roots in citizenship and in campaigning for improvements in society give them an authority that is the source of their strength. Volunteering as an activity is more than offering time to help with the work of voluntary organisations: it is based on individual commitment. That must be recognised by society and by Government, not just through the occasional OBE but through proper training, support and respect.

I can testify from personal experience to the way in which voluntary service has improved the quality of life of those who receive help. But it has also transformed the lives of those who give voluntary service by encouraging personal development, widening their horizons and often enabling them to play a more positive part in some of the most difficult and deprived communities in the land. The effect of such activity, and the personal development that follows it, is immense in terms of community development too. That is true for the young people at the bottom of the heap, including those who have been involved in criminal activity, and for adults.

That fact is illustrated best not in statistics but in the impact of the ex-convict who, as an influential youth leader, became a positive influence on a generation on his estate. It is illustrated by the case of the offender who completed his community service with disabled people and who went on to give a voluntary commitment in a way that changed his life and the lives of those with whom he worked. It is illustrated by the young mother who, in what seemed to be a hopeless setting, started helping in a playgroup. After a period of serial volunteering, she so extended her abilities that she graduated from university a few years later. It is illustrated by the single parents' group in the St. Mellons area of my constituency that set up an advice service to help its members and others. It demonstrated such positive qualities as to lead to a break-through in work and independence for single parents.

Those individuals, in their volunteering, do not illustrate a cheap path to training. They did not set out to benefit themselves; they illustrate the truth in the adage that in giving, one receives. Their experience illustrates the truth for Government that enabling people to volunteer and providing the support, training and opportunity that supports voluntary activity is a first-rate investment in community at a local level, and at a national level in that society whose fabric the Government have damaged in recent years and whose very existence was denied by Lady Thatcher when she was Prime Minister.

At present, the experience of organisations, such as the Prince's Trust Youth Volunteers, and a variety of smaller groups, such as Action for Youth and the Weston Spirit, illustrates the potential of our young people. It illustrates daily that those who appear to be beyond hope can be redeemed—or they can redeem themselves—given the encouragement of tough but caring adults in an environment in which they can develop the confidence to respond to real personal challenges.

That evidence is real, palpable and contemporary, but the tragedy is that it merely confirms the beliefs upon which so many youth organisations were based in the late 19th century and the findings of reports ranging from those of the first world war to the Wolfenden report, the Albermarle report and the report entitled "Youth and Community Work in the Seventies". It took last year's report by a firm of accountants to tell us what our grandmothers always knew: prevention is better than cure and the devil makes work for idle hands.

I refer to the report prepared last year by Coopers and Lybrand for the Prince's Trust, which told us that the youth service is cost-effective in terms of crime prevention. The main purpose of the youth service is to provide benefits for young people growing up. However, the report demonstrated that even in the narrow financial terms of cost-effectiveness—which is supposed to drive the Conservative party—the Government have been foolish and neglectful in ignoring and undermining both the statutory and voluntary youth services in this country.

Anger about that neglect was one of the driving forces that prompted me to stand for Parliament, and the situation has worsened since I came to this place in 1987. I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), whose proposed legislation introduced earlier this year would have given the youth service a proper statutory basis.

Against that background, many hon. Members want to see the development of a scheme of community service, or citizens' service as it has been called and as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) referred to it in his excellent contribution. The name is not important; what is important is that the experience of youth organisations in motivating young people and the new experience of organisations such as the Prince's Trust must drive any move towards citizens' service. Above all, we must recognise that it must nurture growth rather than demand instant results. The mistakes of the 1980s must be learnt.

Such a scheme must not imitate the bureaucratic nightmare that the Manpower Services Commission became under the dead hand of dogmatic ministerial control. We must not repeat the mistakes of America, whose experience rarely travels comfortably in any event. We must have a development that is carefully thought through, that is voluntary rather than compulsory and that builds on experience, rather than statistical imperatives, in motivating young people.

The textbook for our times—indeed, the parable for Tory Britain—is William Golding's book, "Lord of the Flies". Of course, our young people are not wrecked on a desert island, bereft of positive adult influence; but they are too often deserted on the streets of our housing estates and inner cities, bereft of positive adult influence in an environment that encourages the worst of their potential.

A scheme of citizens service, which nurtures self-worth and positive values through giving service to others, will make a positive contribution to turning that situation around. But it can succeed only if it is part of a much bigger change. We must recognise that we will achieve more together than we can alone; that the Government have a responsibility to encourage a sense of community and of belonging at a local level; and that the values for which the Leader of the Opposition has argued, and which are now set out in the constitution of the Labour party, must become the values of new Britain.

In other words, volunteering and community service are an essential part of the whole. They do not constitute a piece of sticking plaster that the Prime Minister can suddenly discover and stick over the broken bones of communities up and down the country in order to pluck an election victory from scenes of ruin and neglect.

12.35 pm

As I rise to reply to this most interesting and important debate, I feel the burden of historical personalities and events on my shoulders. In opening the debate, at least my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) did not refer to Lord Palmerston. I am not sure what Lord Palmerston's views on the subject would have been—nor am I briefed to answer them.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply to the debate introduced by my hon. Friend. He is too modest, because his involvement in the community, both in Chester and nationally, is well known. He has been involved with the National Playing Fields Association, the Voluntary Arts Network and the local sea cadets and scouts, and he has worked within his constituency, particularly in the area of Newton. As he said, I have had the pleasure and privilege of working with him on various schemes and ideas about volunteering that have been suggested to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others. I commend my hon. Friend for his efforts and I am very grateful to him for his kind opening remarks.

I think that this has been a debate of the highest quality. I shall comment on one or two points. I was delighted by the helpful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes). I found the contribution from the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) most interesting and I shall refer to it again in a moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said that Chester regards itself as the volunteering capital of the nation. That may or may not be the case; my Department does not have information to prove or disprove that claim. However, I hope that the debate will arouse sufficient interest in the country to prompt other locations to try to meet that challenge. Perhaps they will also wish to claim proudly to be the volunteering capital of the nation. My hon. Friend has undoubtedly set the cat among the pigeons in that sense.

This morning's debate is a particularly timely one: it is taking place as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is hosting an event to recognise the 70 winners of new grants worth more than £3 million as part of the Government's "Make a Difference" initiative, to which a number of hon. Members referred and to which I shall return later.

I fully understand some of concerns of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), and hope to discuss them in a moment; but, given such an excellent opportunity to extol the virtues of volunteering, I am a little sorry that the Opposition seem once more to be producing a list of nothing but problems and had lots of cold water to pour on the subject. The debate is an excellent occasion for all of us to unite in being positive and encouraging people to take part. As I have said, some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised are worth not only noting but considering and reacting to. I am sorry that he spent so much of his speech criticising, rather than giving examples or extolling the virtues of volunteering.

The hon. Gentleman may have misheard some of my comments, but I am glad that he intends to respond to some of my points. Any cold water was poured not on volunteering but on the responsibility of Ministers who failed to respond to matters such as the "Make a Difference" report. I assure the Minister that the water was carefully directed.

Perhaps we could agree for the moment to regard it as tepid.

Millions of people voluntarily give of their time to help others, and that has been confirmed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester and other hon. Members—for example, there is the young person who helps an old lady with her shopping. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent referred to the word "love". Of course there is not just the love of the young person carrying out the act of generosity for an old person but the reaction of that old person to the act and the relationship that grows between those two people. That can quite legitimately be regarded as a loving relationship and it is important and should be encouraged.

There is also the governor who helps his local school and the retired architect who helps to formulate ideas for a local charity in his spare time, giving of his professional skills without any call for recompense or return but because of the pleasure and happiness of being able to help. Every hour of the time of such people makes a real difference to the lives of others. Research clearly shows that the number of people who volunteer has increased. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said, it is estimated that as many as 23 million people regularly volunteer in one way or another and that is an enormous proportion of the population.

To say that we have a failure on our hands that we need to remedy is quite untrue. In rolling back the frontiers of the state we have massively increased the scope for voluntary action at local level. Initiatives such as self-governing schools, which I note that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen do not particularly like, and enhanced powers for governors have made it easier for those who want to give up their time to help others to do so. We have also expanded the role of housing associations and, where possible, we have given council tenants the right to set up co-operatives so that they can look after their own affairs in their own locations.

The whole issue of volunteering does not necessarily relate only to helping old people and the like; it also has to do with helping oneself and one's community. We think that that is also good. The Government have been keen to ensure that we do all that we can to promote and support volunteering. That is why last year the Home Secretary launched the "Make a Difference" volunteering initiative, which we discussed earlier. If we want steady growth of voluntary action in communities all over the country, we need to make sure that people have the information and encouragement that they need.

Young people in particular can find volunteering fulfilling and rewarding, and it is also a practical way of improving their skills and enhancing their career prospects. I have employed young people in the past; seeing on a young person's CV the fact that he has been helpful in his community and has been a good volunteer or hearing about that in the course of the interview is an enormous plus when considering that person for the job. Young volunteers gain in confidence and competence and are exposed to new groups of people and new experiences. Participation at an early age in such work is habit forming and that is to the long-term benefit of young people and the community.

I emphasise that we must be wary about viewing all young people as a problem. It is easy to generalise and all too easy to patronise them. Too often, the media depict the young in a categorised way as either cynical or idle or up to no good. Small numbers of young people and, indeed, small numbers of people in all sectors of society fit such descriptions, but for the vast majority that is manifestly not the case. Many young people are very positive and altruistic and contribute energetically to their communities. In the haste to focus on the problems that are posed by individuals, there is always a terrible danger of neglecting to praise and support the vast majority of our young people. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester praised a number of organisations and young people in particular.

We also have evidence to support the positive impact of young people on volunteering generally. The Volunteer Centre's 1991 survey suggested that about 55 per cent. of young people between the ages of 18 and 24 had done some voluntary work in the previous 12 months. Other surveys put the figure rather lower, depending perhaps on definition and terminology, but I think that all agree that there is a solid and substantial core of young people who volunteer and contribute to the community in a huge range of ways.

In that context, it is worth pausing to consider the range and diversity of volunteering opportunities that are available to young people. For example, most schools have some community service programmes which bring young people into contact with the elderly or with people with disabilities. Youth action agencies can build on that outside the school less formally. There are also more formal schemes such as the Prince's Trust volunteers, Raleigh International and Community Service Volunteers which take full-time volunteers. I am pleased that hon. Members referred to those bodies. I recently met members of the Prince's Trust in an inner-city part of my constituency and I was deeply impressed by the programmes that they were pursuing and the trust's work generally in all its forms. The hon. Member for Eastleigh spoke about that important matter.

Any strategy for volunteering must recognise the existing range of provision and build on the tremendous expertise and experience that are available. We must not build bureaucratic and top-heavy mechanisms and structures which would prove both costly and ineffective and ultimately could provide less choice and opportunity for all our volunteers. Sometimes I think that our critics are rather too keen on building bureaucracy and top-heavy structures and I hope that we will resist that in whatever we do or assist with.

I have focused on the contribution and impact of younger volunteers and on the youthful energy and enthusiasm that they bring to voluntary activity but, of course, we already have active groups of volunteers who are in their 20s, 30s and 40s—I am afraid that that just rules me out. Despite the demands of families and careers, such volunteers often find considerable time for volunteering. But let us not forget those who are in their middle and later years and those who have retired from full-time work because they also have a full and active contribution to make to communities by sharing the wealth of vast experience with others through volunteering.

As hon. Members have said, there is no question but that the demographic pattern of our country is changing. People are retiring younger, there are more changes in the labour market, people are healthier and are living longer and they have more active lives. Therefore we must not neglect the valuable contribution that those older volunteers can make. Aside from their everyday skills, many older people also have an enormous raft of career expertise and experience which can be successfully deployed for the benefit of the community and the volunteer. Many thousands of older people have already taken up that challenge and are encouraging young people and building a bridge between generations or providing helpful and practical advice.

It is important that all the organisations seeking volunteers do not neglect to involve people of all ages and I hope that they will renew their efforts to ensure that that is achieved. I welcome the work of the Retired Executive Action Clearing House—known as REACH—and the Community Service Volunteers retired senior volunteer programme because that is doing a lot to help bring older people into contact with their communities. It is important that positive thought is given by employers and employees to volunteering as an option following their retirement.

I am aware of the matters concerned with unemployed people and ethnic groups and I accept that it is important that they should also be fully involved in volunteering in the community.

Through the "Make a Difference" initiative, we in Government have launched a raft of measures that will help more people to volunteer and to take an active part in their communities. As I have said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who was engaged on the awards this morning, launched that initiative in March 1994. Since that time, we have made significant progress. Our underlying policy is to build on what there is and to provide the support and development to enable more people to become involved.

For example, at the start of my speech, I mentioned the event that is taking place in recognition of winners of more than £3 million of new grants. Significantly, 53 of the grants we are making are for new projects throughout the United Kingdom, which will involve more young or older people in voluntary activity.

Each of those 53 projects will produce real benefits on the ground in local communities. They will also benefit the volunteers and in some cases help to bridge the generations through volunteering. For example, a project that we are funding in the Tynedale region of Northumberland, where I lived for many years, will make available volunteering opportunities in rural areas for both young and older volunteers in providing a playbus and toy library scheme. That is an important service. It is good that the project has been able to provide that, and it has been rewarded as a result. It will also bring practical benefits to families with young children in a rural area that does not currently have access to such facilities.

The other grants that we are awarding today are for 17 new local volunteer development agencies to be established in regions of England where no local infrastructure to support volunteering exists. We shall be spending around £1.8 million over two years on these projects, and I am delighted to be able to take this opportunity to congratulate the winners of both those grant schemes.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced his intention to make those grants at the launch of the "Make a Difference" team's report on 6 June this year. The team, which was established last October as part of the "Make a Difference" initiative, took just eight months to produce a wide-ranging strategy on how to take forward volunteering into the next millennium.

That team's report, entitled "An Outline Volunteering Strategy for the UK", has been widely welcomed. It made 81 recommendations and at the launch my right hon. and learned Friend announced a range of practical and positive measures that would build on their work.

We also established the Volunteering Partnership with members from the public, private and voluntary sectors to advise Ministers on the development and promotion of volunteering. That small and highly focused group is already up and running and will be producing advice on how volunteers might be involved to relieve carers, and on ways of taking forward the commitment of my right hon. and learned Friend that, by the end of 1997, there should be a volunteering opportunity for every young person who wants one. In the longer term, that group will also provide advice on how to involve more older people in volunteering.

In June, we announced plans for a new volunteering award scheme, which has been launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, as I said earlier, has always been a strong supporter and advocate of our policies in this sector. The aim of those awards is to recognise and reward organisations throughout the UK that have shown excellence and innovation in involving volunteers.

Aside from making awards in 10 areas of the UK, we shall also be announcing an overall UK winner, as well as making a special award this year in recognition of an organisation that has involved volunteering support of carers. The closing date for nominations for the awards is 31 October and the winners will be announced on 5 December—International Volunteers Day. I am excited by the meet your street initiative, to which my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester referred. Perhaps that will be a contender or applicant for that award.

We plan to run pilot media campaigns in the new year in advance of a nationwide campaign. That will fulfil another element in the plans that my right hon. Friend announced in June.

All elements of the package that we announced in June built on the work that we had already put in place: establishing the "Make a Difference" team, providing £470,000 in grants to support 27 new partnership projects to bring more people into volunteering, and establishing the national volunteering helpline, which, for the cost of a local call, can provide information to anyone seeking to become involved in volunteering.

That is all on top of the direct support that we give to national organisations that develop and support volunteering, such as the Volunteer Centre.

The Government's support for volunteering, however, does not end with my Department. This morning, I am able to announce—as one of my hon. Friends hinted—the publication of the departmental action plans, which will take forward volunteering in the sectors of responsibility in all Departments. Copies have today been placed in the Library of the House. I am sure that colleagues represented on the ministerial group for volunteering and the voluntary sector would agree that those plans represent an important step forward and provide new impetus across Departments for the development and support for volunteering. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester that I shall be making absolutely sure that all Departments fall in line with those plans, otherwise we will both want to know why.

All in all, "Make a Difference" is synonymous with practical, positive and partnership measures that we have taken and will take to ensure that volunteering remains a hallmark of this nation's history. It is our role in Government to act as persuader and enabler.

Enabling should not be regarded as a dirty word. Too often, Opposition Members assume that, because the Government believe in enabling, whether it be in this context, in relation to local authorities or wherever else, we are not fulfilling obligations. Our job is to ensure that we encourage people to volunteer, but, as I said earlier, if we were to overdo the bureaucracy, the object would not be achieved.

Before the Minister concludes his remarks, perhaps I can assist him so that he does not have to speak too slowly. Would he like to refer, as he was invited to do by Opposition and Conservative Members, to the aspects of enabling that relate to reducing the problems and constraints that are placed in the path of unemployed people who wish to volunteer, and to the discouragement that exists, as illustrated by the evidence provided to his hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester?

It is only fair to say that we are concerned about and interested in ensuring that people who are unemployed or who receive benefit are encouraged as far as possible to take part in volunteering without penalty. We would encourage them as much as we can.

Any announcement?

No announcement, I am afraid, but we are considering such matters.

If we want voluntary collective action in communities all over the country to grow steadily, we need to ensure that people have the information and encouragement that they need. In that way, Government action can be the catalyst that unleashes volunteer power.

Our "Make a Difference" initiative aims to build on what has been and continues to be achieved. We know that there is more to do and that there is scope for even more people to become involved. The UK has a proud tradition of voluntary service and most, if not all, of the hon. Members who have spoken, including my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, have referred to that proud tradition.

As I said, I am not sure what Palmerston would make of this, but we intend to sustain our fine reputation and tradition in this way. With the help of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is very keen, and because of the encouragement that we always received from my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister, we intend to take the matter further and we will ensure that volunteering plays an important part in the future life of our community.

Greece

12.58 pm

The wider purpose of this debate is to make some small positive contribution to Anglo-Greek relations, but there is a more immediate motivation and purpose: to make amends for an insult that was felt by the Greek people in the publication by the Daily Mail on VE day 1995 of a poster which commemorated the sacrifices of our allies in the second world war, but which omitted Greece. The timing of the debate is deliberate. It is as close as possible to 28 October, which is a national holiday in Greece. It is called Ochi day. "Ochi" is the Greek word for "No". It is the day on which, in the small hours, Greece said no to Mussolini's ultimatum.

There followed a super-human demonstration of individual and national courage by the Greeks—a concept of courage which was interestingly analysed in a deeply philosophical article by the Greek ambassador, His Excellency Mr. Elias Gounaris, this Sunday in The Sunday Telegraph.

Against all military odds, in the campaign the Greeks repulsed the Axis forces in the Pindhos mountains, then made the first territorial gains which demonstrated to the world that the Axis forces were not invincible. The six-month campaign ended only when Hitler was forced to commit from the north tanks which were diverted from the eastern front. That had important consequences for the progress of the second world war. Greece eventually fell on 23 April 1941.

During those six months, Greece, alone of the countries of Europe, was in armed combat, together with Great Britain, against the Axis forces. Sadly, I find that nowadays not too many people seem to know that.

By the end of the war, after three and a half years of occupation, suffering and depredation of the people, the economy and the resources of the country, some 558,000 Greeks had died—a staggering 8 per cent. of the population of 7 million in that small country. Hence, early-day motion 1507 is published on the Order Paper today. It deplores the action of the Daily Mail in June 1995, remembers the sacrifice made by Greece, and invites the editor of the Daily Mail to make appropriate amends to the people of Greece on 28 October 1995.

The end of the war was not the end of Greece's suffering. As the rest of western Europe set about the process of reconstruction, Greece endured civil war until 1949. That war was to prevent the communists from extending their sway to the warm-water port of Salonica—that is, over the soil of Macedonia. Greeks who fought in both those wars are still alive. The political, social and economic consequences for the country were awful, and are perhaps still not yet entirely exorcised.

The British of the second world war generation had no doubt about our debt to Greece. Winston Churchill remarked at the time that one should not say so much that the Greeks fight like heroes as that heroes fight like Greeks.

That generation had no doubt about the fitness of Greece in 1980 to be enrolled as the 10th member of the European Community. That Community is predicated on the premise that never again should Europe be torn asunder by war. They had no doubts about the importance of Greece to the western alliance—situated in the southern Balkans at the interface between Europe and the Lavent—as a worthy and important member of the western democracies and the progenitor of the western democratic tradition, although that is another story, which perhaps should not detain us today.

Sadly, the second world war generation is passing on, and, certainly in the British press, one detects a meaner attitude to Greece, based partly perhaps on misunderstanding and partly, I fear, on prejudice, and even xenophobia. That meaner attitude sees things in cost-benefit terms, which is expressed in calculations of how much we pay into the Community budget and which members are net recipients of Community aid.

Greece is often cast as the bete noire, with accusations of fraud in the application of the common agricultural policy. It is particularly disappointing for a major newspaper such as The Independent in an editorial on 5 January 1994 to refer to Greece as

"widely regarded in Brussels as more of a liability than an asset to the Union. Its economy is the worst performer of the Twelve … it relies on billions of pounds in subsidies from Brussels … a substantial proportion of these subsidies is believed to drift into private pockets … so corrupt is the political culture of Greece."

On 27 March 1994, in the most insulting article, The Sunday Telegraph referred to the modern Greek with his dark glasses, car phone and, of course, phantom olive groves attracting EU subsidies. The truth is that, when proper statistical analyses are produced, two things are clear: first, no EU member is in a position to cast the first stone in respect of CAP fraud; and, secondly, that the farmers of Greece compare favourably with their Mediterranean neighbours such as Italy, as well as with those respected northern European neighbours such as Germany. In his response, I invite the Minister to offer a more reasoned and balanced view of the place of Greece in the European Union.

One senses less objection to subventions from the European Union to the ravaged former communist economies of eastern Europe than to the economy of a country which was torn apart by not only Nazi occupation but a civil war which raged precisely to stem the tide of communism in the southern Balkans.

That brings me to the issue of Macedonia.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his excellent speech, and on highlighting the forgetfulness of the British press of the role that Greece has played in defending democracy. As a British citizen, I am proud that Greece stood alone with Britain at the beginning of the second world war.

Does the hon. Gentleman share with me a concern that the same anti-Greek attitude has spilled over into the debate about the former republic of Macedonia? Does he agree that there seems to be a sad lack of understanding of 20th-century history, and how Greece has suffered in the Balkans, how it has faced communism alone, how it is only in this century that it has regained all its national territory, and of how much the province of Macedonia means to the Greek people?

For another Slavic country to claim the name of Macedonia strikes to the heart of the Greek people, the Greek culture and the Greek nation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in this country we should be far more understanding about why the Greeks have stood out in a spirit of friendliness to reach an accommodation with that country without giving away something which means so much to them—the national name?

In some ways, it is regrettable that the debate about Macedonia was centred on ancient history—Philip of Macedon and Alexander the Great—justified though the arguments were. There is certainly more resonance to the modern ear in arguments about 20th-century history. I shall be illustrating precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) about the deep significance of the issues at stake between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The hon. Member made a helpful intervention, for which I thank him.

To those who fought in the Greek civil war, the three-pointed issue with the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia cannot be categorised—it would be an insult to do so—as a silly quarrel over a name. To them, the name represents a deep sense of national identity and a political statement by Tito over which they fought. Those attitudes are reinforced by the other two points at issue between the two countries—the choice of national emblem on the flag of the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, and certain wording in the constitution of that country.

When referring to British attitudes on these matters, it is not only newspapers that can be cited. When Greece imposed a limited blockade on the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia to induce it to negotiate meaningfully on the issues in dispute, the attitude of the British Government was clearly one of criticism. The Times independently took the opportunity to comment:

"This latest episode again illustrates the dangers of attempting to integrate a semi-Levantine society into the western family of nations."

Interestingly, the European Court of Justice took a different view, and supported the right of Greece to impose the embargo. Thankfully, the embargo has now been lifted, as two of the points of issue have been resolved—the emblem and the wording of the constitution. Discussions are to be held about the name.

I take this opportunity to deplore the attempted assassination of President Kiro Gligorov, which followed the signing of the accord. I join the Greek Government in their condemnation of that act, and in their good wishes to the president for a full and speedy recovery.

Instead of hailing the accord as an act of statesmanship by Karolos Papoulias, the Greek Foreign Minister, The Guardian carped and commented on the reluctance of Greece to negotiate it. Cyrus Vance and his colleagues, to whom much credit must be given for helping to broker the accord, had to undertake last-minute negotiations to prevent the Foreign Minister of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia from sabotaging it.

As I have said, I shall not cite only newspapers. Within days of the signing of the accord, one of our Government's Foreign Affairs Ministers was in Skopje congratulating the Government of the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia and promising British support. I have no objection to that, and neither does Greece. It was objectionable, however, that the Minister referred constantly to the "Republic of Macedonia". It is precisely the name that is still the subject of further discussions between the two countries.

As far as I know, a British Minister did not go to Athens. But there did go to Athens, at the same time, three Conservative party representatives who were members of the Western European Union. They, in the Greek parliament building, offended their hosts with a series of studied insults, including the remark, "We cannot understand why there is such a fuss over a name."

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to repudiate such insensitivity by a ministerial colleague and by official representatives of the Conservative party. The newspaper that reported on these events referred to the remarks in question being made in a typical British mixture of sarcasm and arrogance. If they were not intended to be received in that way, that was certainly the result. The Minister has an opportunity to repudiate them, and to make amends.

On a more positive note, I invite the Minister to congratulate Karolos Papoulias on his statesmanship in entering into an accord with the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia. It follows his previous achievements of an accord with Albania, his intervention in Serbia together with the Greek Defence Minister, Gerasimos Arsenis, which contributed importantly to the release of the United Nations prisoners in June 1995, and joint exercises of Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian and Rumanian troops.

Add to that the Greek initiative in inaugurating in Athens this very month what is intended to be a regular series of meetings of the major cities of south-east Europe to discuss the problems of the region, and there is ample evidence of the important role that Greece can and does play as a catalyst for the resolution of internal tensions in the southern Balkans, and for the establishment of peace, stability, co-operation and prosperity in a troubled region.

The Greek economy is not as strong as that of its more fortunate European partners. There are good reasons for that, including 450 years of Ottoman occupation, the second world war and subsequently the civil war. The politics of Greece is indeed lively, but it is certainly open. There are no more lively critics than Greek politicians.

The perception of Greece from the distant vantage point of northern Europe may be of weakness and instability. Relative, however, to its geopolitical position, Greece is the most stable entity in the southern Balkans. It is also rare in the region in having no designs on the territory of any of its neighbours. It is western in its political orientation. At the same time, it understands and plays its full role in the politics of the Levant and the Mediterranean basin.

For these reasons, Greece is the best equipped of all the Balkan countries to take a lead in the development of the region. I invite the Minister to demonstrate in his response his commitment to a set of policies for Anglo-Greek relations that fully recognises the special qualities of Greece.

1.17 pm

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) for securing this chance to debate Britain's relationship with Greece. I congratulate him on doing so.

I have only limited time in which to do justice to the centuries of history which join Britain and Greece, but in this year of world war two anniversaries, I should recall, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that the last week in October carries a special resonance in the history of Anglo-Greek friendship. This Saturday, it will be exactly 55 years since Greece defied Mussolini's ultimatum: the so-called day of saying no, or "ochi".

As the British historian C. M. Woodhouse wrote:

"History cannot forget that in 1940, Greece was the only country to enter the war voluntarily on the allied side when Britain stood alone."

It is right that we should not forget that—I agree with him wholeheartedly. The hon. Gentleman referred to the eloquent and philosophical reminder of those events by Elias Gounaris, Greece's excellent ambassador in London, as penned in The Sunday Telegraph last weekend.

The questions we need to address now are those of the present, not of the past. Why is Greece important for Britain? Why is it important for Europe? In previous debates, hon. Members have drawn eloquent attention to Greece's unique and important position in a difficult and turbulent part of our continent.

I begin by spending a few moments on the nature of Britain's partnership with Greece. Britain and Greece are nations of traders and travellers. Two and a quarter million British people visited Greece in 1994. The numbers coming from Greece are, of course, proportionally lower, but they are growing fast. It is by no means just a story of package holidays and sightseeing. There is a long and distinguished tradition of cultural and educational links between Greece and Britain.

Greeks have studied and taught in Britain since the 17th century. Today, Britain is host to some 7,000 Greek students, enough to fill a whole university. There are more Greeks studying at postgraduate level in Britain than there are students from any other country. About 600 British students study at Greek universities under the ERASMUS programme. Greece itself is the fastest growing market for British education overseas, with ever-increasing numbers of Greeks learning English and taking British examinations. It all adds up to a substantial sharing of experience and culture, from which both countries will continue to benefit.

For two weeks in September and October this year, Greece was treated to one of the biggest celebrations of British culture and achievement ever seen in that country. This was the "Britain in Greece" festival, a fortnight organised by the British embassy and the British Council in Athens. Its aim was to present the best of British achievement in the performing arts, design, science and technology, sport and much more besides. It was just one symbol of the importance that we attach to our relationship with Greece, but it was also an opportunity for thousands of Greeks all over the country to sit up and take notice of Britain, to revive their interest in what Britain is and does, and, above all, to enjoy it.

I should like to pay tribute to the work of our ambassador in Greece and his wife—Oliver and Julia Miles—and of the director of the British Council in Athens, John Mundy, and all their staffs, who put such energy into masterminding the hugely successful project of raising Britain's profile in Greece. I am sure that the hon. Member for Knowsley, South will join me in congratulating all those involved.

The project not only gained the attention of the Greek public but won substantial backing from British and Greek business. The rich menu of events and spectacle was cultural diplomacy at its best, but it was also more than that. One of the centrepiece events was a trade fair called "The Best of Britain". Its aim was to show that Britain is not only a traditional friend of Greece, a point to which I shall return, but an innovative and progressive business partner for the future.

Britain and Greece are linked by a common commercial spirit. We share business interests, from shopkeeping to shipping. Today, there is substantial British investment in Greece. British companies are winning business in EU-funded infrastructure projects which are now transforming Greece. That is a good side of EU funding.

We want British companies to win more. Trade between the United Kingdom and Greece has been increasing steadily over the past few years. The balance of trade is strongly in our favour, as it turns out. British exports to Greece for the period January to November 1994 totalled some £843 million, but our market share of some 6.5 per cent. suggests that there is room for us to do better still, and we shall endeavour to support efforts in that direction.

Like the hon. Member for Knowsley, South, I also wish to deal with the wider picture. Greece is unique in the European Union, in that none of its immediate neighbours are fellow European Union members, which has its implications. Greece's membership of the Union thus provides vital links with countries which are not—or not yet—members, but whose security and economic health are important to us. It is a position that brings particular difficulties which we must understand, and special responsibilities which we must work to encourage.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the dispute that Greece has had with the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia over the past two years. Regrettably, there has been even more difficulty, so it was all the more welcome to see the efforts of Cyrus Vance and the readiness of both sides to work together, which bore fruit in the interim accord. With the entry into force of that agreement on 15 October, the way has opened to a resumption of normal trading; so, too, has the route to a co-operative and peaceful neighbourly relationship between those two countries.

We welcome the new constructiveness and the way in which both sides have kept their nerve in the wake of the appalling assassination attempt on President Gligorov. I am glad that Greece responded quickly with messages of sympathy, offers of medical and other assistance, and even aid in detail, right down to giving the negotiating team a mobile phone. There was support at every level.

There are some tricky issues still to be resolved—the hon. Member referred to them—but the ships in Salonika harbour are loading up once again with goods to go to and from Skopje, and cargo traffic is also being received bound for Skopje. There is a willingness on both sides to keep the talks on track and look for solutions. That brings some real brightness to what are too often the clouded political skies of the Balkan region.

I hope, too, that a similar spirit of constructiveness will continue to prevail in the relationship between Greece and Albania. With effort on both sides, a past of antagonism and mistrust can be succeeded by a future of co-operation. As Greece has shown before, it can provide much-needed strong support to its neighbours and act as a force for stability in the Balkans. It has done so for Bulgaria during a difficult stage in that country's transition to a free-market, democratic society.

The hon. Member mentioned Bosnia. Greece's interests are substantially engaged in the stability of its neighbouring region. We respect Greece's decision that, as a neighbouring country, it should refrain from contributing troops to UNPROFOR. It is important to recognise even a negative decision. We warmly welcome the Greek Government's recent decision to contribute to the costs of the rapid reaction force in Bosnia. The prospects for peace are now better than at any time since the conflict began and our thoughts have turned to how such a peace could be implemented. In this, too, I am sure that Greece will have an important role to play.

In the Balkans, and more widely, we look to Greece to play its part in creatively building a wider Europe—not a defensive, exclusive Europe, but an expansive and outward-looking one. We need Greece's continuing engagement in helping to make our key institutions work, in ensuring that NATO, the European Union and the Western European Union are as effective as they can be in underpinning the security and prosperity that are vital to the future of our continent.

In the context of building a secure and prosperous Europe, the troubled relationship between Greece and Turkey is a particular concern. The North Atlantic Alliance, for example, is gearing up for some of the most complex practical tasks in its history. We shall want our alliance to be functioning at the peak of its effectiveness. Willingness on the part of Greece and Turkey to agree to resolve their differences over the alliance's southern region command structure can only help.

The European Union, too, has some stiff tasks ahead, as we look forward to the addition of more new members and the consolidation of the Union's links with countries whose membership may still be a prospect for the longer term. Here, too, the relationship between Greece and Turkey will be important and it will be in both countries' interests to promote, not frustrate, each other's objectives as the Europe of the 21st century takes shape.

I deal finally with Cyprus. One cannot ignore Cyprus when considering our relationship with Greece. The impact of Graeco-Turkish relations on Cyprus is much debated. Some suggest that a solution in Cyprus will be possible only if there is more warmth in that relationship; others say that, to achieve real reconciliation between Greece and Turkey, there must first be a settlement in Cyprus. I do not think that we should chase our tails in such a debate. Whatever else might help or hinder the solution in Cyprus, an enduring solution ultimately depends on the will of the two Cypriot communities.

But, like Britain, Greece and Turkey are guarantor powers under the 1960 Cyprus treaty of guarantee, and they share with us the responsibility that that entails. I should like to see that responsibility discharged in both Athens and Ankara in applying downward—not upward—pressure on the deployment of troops and arms on the island of Cyprus. I rather think that the hon. Member for Knowsley, South agrees with me on that.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Knowsley, South has drawn our attention today to the spirit of pragmatism and co-operation which Greece is bringing to its relations with its neighbours. There will, I am sure, still be difficulties—

Order. We must turn to the next debate.

Share Options

1.30 pm

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss approved discretionary share option schemes, which began as a result of the Finance Act 1984. Earlier this year, there was much heat thrown on the subject, but not as much light as a good debate in the House of Commons might be able to throw on it.

Earlier in the year, we had a rather unhealthy public debate about share options, which was largely started by people with no experience of running companies and absolutely no experience of recruiting, retaining and motivating employees. In fact, quite a bit of the comment came from the Opposition Front-Bench team, and they do not have much experience in any of the key areas of running British business or industry.

The debate was more about the politics of envy of a small number of people than common sense. It focused on about 100 people in the country—a small number of directors of privatised utilities—who were given the general name "fat cats". No one asked if the newspaper editors who commissioned many of the stories on the subject fell into the category of fat cats, yet I understand that many of them earn much more than the executives of privatised industries.

No one asked if media stars, such as the lady who draws the six lottery numbers on a Saturday night, fell into the category of fat cats, yet I understand that she earns more than the majority of directors of privatised utilities. While directors of privatised utilities may be able to do her job and draw the winning lottery numbers on a Saturday night, I am not sure whether she would be able to do theirs.

One of the tragedies of the debate earlier this year was that it did not really focus on what share options are about. Sadly, what also happened as a result of the debate was that the people who lost out, who were forgotten, were not the 100 or so so-called fat cats but the 600,000 or so thin cats, who have also benefited over the years from share options. Those 600,000 people are ordinary men and women and I hope that this debate will be seen as their chance to have someone speak up for them in the House of Commons and get the message across.

In speaking up for one of the thin cats, I can do no better than to select a poem by Kay Every, a security attendant in the Asda store in East Retford. If the House will allow me, I shall extract a couple of short paragraphs from her poem. It says:

"I'm not a fat cat, just a skinny kitten.
I can't understand why I've been bitten.
PLEASE Mr. Chancellor, don't you see?
It's BIG FAT CATS you want—not little me.
So come on Chancellor, don't be mean:
leave us thin cats our saucer of cream."

She wants her share options, and I am not surprised.

I joined the Conservative party way back, more than 25 years ago, because it was the party that stood up for the rights of the individual to own. In 1991, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his views in that area by saying that in the 1980s,

"our aim was a life enriched by ownership, in which home, shares and pensions were not something for others—but something for everyone".

He went on to say:

"But this revolution is still not complete. In the 1990s we must carry it further. We must extend savings and ownership in every form."

I believe that share options are a form of extending ownership. How do they expand ownership? An option to acquire shares means that people become involved in the company for which they work. It enables them to feel part of the ownership structure of that company. Many go on to hold the shares that they can acquire as a result of share options.

Some—I accept—sell those shares. But what do they do? In many instances they use the resulting proceeds to buy themselves pensions. They do not have the inflation-linked pensions of civil servants or—frankly—of Members of Parliament. Many people find that owning share options gives them the opportunity to acquire capital and savings for use in their retirement.

I accept that some people sell their share options when they have value—if they have value, because not every share option will result in value—and repay their mortgages as the first step to increasing their position on the ownership ladder. So we should never take the view that just because share options result in the disposal of shares, people are not expanding ownership and their capital standings.

The Greenbury committee was cited earlier in the year as being against share options and the current tax regime for share options. That is not entirely true. I spoke to Sir Richard Greenbury after that was cited. He made the point that his report was about directors; it was not about ordinary men and women, low income and middle-income people, and their ownership of share options. He felt that Parliament was the place in which the tax position of those people should be debated—not in the pages of his report, which was focused on directors.

I shall deal briefly with some of the Treasury arguments against share options. It has been suggested that they help fat cats. In fact, from further research, people have begun to realise that the fat cats have any number of other methods of remuneration open to them, and many thin cats—some 600,000 as I said earlier—working in 6,170 companies, have been helped by share option schemes. Indeed, in my constituency, the ferry company P and O operates a share option scheme, and many hundreds of people have benefited as a result.

The gains from share options are often much more modest than people recognise. Some have been in the thousands or even the very low tens of thousands of pounds—not hundreds of thousands of pounds, as much of the publicity has focused on. Although it was suggested in a parliamentary answer to a question I tabled that the average income in the past year of those in share option schemes was £45,000, research by Proshare, the independent pro-share ownership organisation supported by more than 400 companies, shows that the average income among the people it contacted is much nearer to £16,500 than the statistics produced by the Inland Revenue show. That is because share options are seen as a way of democratising ownership and bringing the opportunities for ownership of shares in companies and interest in companies much further down the income scale to the low-income groups.

The Treasury suggested originally that share option schemes resulted in £80 million of lost revenue, but in an answer to a parliamentary question that I received yesterday, I discovered that if any savings are to be made from the tax changes on share options, they will not be made until 2002 or 2003. The Opposition Front-Bench team should learn about that because the shadow Chancellor has regularly been on "Today" claiming some tax wheeze through which the Treasury could make enormous and immediate savings. Indeed, the calculation of those savings is only one side of the equation. It leaves out the important side, which is that no gains from share options can be made unless the inherent value of the company increases. Normally, that can be done only by an increase in profits. An increase in profits results in additional corporation tax revenues. So I believe that share options are self-financing or, if anything, result in more income for the Treasury because more corporation tax is paid by successful companies if gains are made through share option schemes by the employees.

It has also been suggested that alternative share schemes are available. While I accept that alternative schemes are available as a result of other financial legislation, they are not so popular. Answers to my parliamentary questions which I received yesterday show that the number of companies taking up those share schemes has been diminishing. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor must take into account in his Budget the fact that those schemes have not been so popular in recent years. It looks as if the focus is moving back towards approved share option schemes, or ADSOS.

Another argument that has been made is that share option schemes were introduced when tax rates were higher and that they are largely focused on top people. My experience is that such schemes have always been used for low and middle-income people. I should perhaps declare an interest as someone who has never benefited personally from share option schemes but has been a non-executive director of a company which awarded share options. The companies of which I was a non-executive director always awarded share options to people at secretary level and in middle management as well as to directors. There was always a focus on motivating and retaining people who were extremely important to the future performance of the company.

So I do not accept that, simply because share option schemes were introduced with higher income earners in mind at a time when tax rates were higher, we should stop them now when they are so successful in helping low and middle-income people. I do not accept that the fact that some employees sell their shares is an argument for getting rid of the schemes. That sale of shares widens the ownership of capital, and that is important.

There has been a suggestion that option profits are income and not capital. I remind the House that it takes three years to realise any profits from a share option scheme and that many people hold them for 10 years. That is not in the nature of income but in the nature of capital. I should also point out that no one in their right mind who was granted share options would attempt in the first year to approach their bank manager for a loan and no bank manager would award a loan against a share option in a scheme. The fact is that share options are not income on which loans can be granted by any bank. They are capital.

Share options represent a transfer of wealth or capital from the existing shareholders of a company to new shareholders—the employees. It is definitely a transfer of capital. That transfer is undertaken by the owners of the business. They are pleased to do so because they know that the employees are thereby encouraged to work harder and associate themselves with the overall benefits that the owners receive from the business. The identification of a common interest between employee and shareholder is something that we have certainly applauded and supported in the past.

I argue that we need share option schemes to help low and middle-income employees. We should never forget that the Proshare research has shown that the average income of a member of a share option scheme is more likely to be £16,500 today than the higher figures that have been quoted. We need share option schemes because they encourage the creation of a share-owning democracy. We need them because no money is required at the grant of an option so such schemes are particularly suited to help low-income employees, who do not have the capital to involve themselves in save-as-you-earn share option schemes.

We also need share option schemes because they are effective for companies and involve little bureaucracy, whereas the other schemes involve much more. I should mention that the campaign for share options with which I have been associated has received support from many companies including Forte plc, Cable and Wireless plc, Walker's Crisps Ltd.—a subsidiary of Pepsi Cola—Dixons Group plc, Tarmac plc, WH Smith Group plc, John Menzies plc, the Burton Group plc and Next plc. All those companies are large, but the House should not think that only large companies are interested in share option schemes.

Many smaller companies and high-technology companies regard share options as fundamental to the package that they offer their employees. Many high-tech companies in Britain today are under threat of having their employees recruited by silicon valley companies in the United States of America. Companies in America have share option schemes and we need them to retain the right type of people with their unique high-tech skills.

We should not forget how wide is the use of share option schemes among employees today. I understand from research that 96 per cent. of companies that are newly quoted on the London stock exchange have had share option schemes. They are not the larger companies, but small and medium-sized companies obtaining flotation on the London stock market for the first time. They regard share option schemes as a fundamental means of helping their staff accumulate capital. That is part of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has talked about—helping us to develop a competitive, enterprise economy.

I shall conclude my remarks so that my colleagues, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), will have time to speak. Share option schemes are fundamental to the enterprise economy and important for recruitment, retention and motivation of employees. They encourage the development of a common interest between employees and shareholders. They are terribly important in what we are trying to achieve as a Conservative party in Britain and what the Conservative Government are trying to achieve.

1.47 pm

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on his success in the ballot and on his single-minded determination in conducting this campaign. The suggestion that share options should be taxed as income and not capital has no relevance to the vast majority of fat cats. They use up their capital gains tax exemptions elsewhere and pay tax on gains from their share options at the same rate as their marginal rate of income tax. It is the small cats who would suffer from such a change—the Asda checkout girl rather than the chief executive of Asda.

It is also wrong to suggest, as the Government did, that share options should be taxed when they are exercised. The Confederation of British Industry has pointed out in its Budget submission that if that happened, there would be every incentive for shareholders to crystallise the gain and sell the shares overnight. No one wants to be taxed on a paper gain when there is a risk that the share price will go down rather than up.

There is no doubt that share options increase the loyalty of employees and are a useful recruitment tool. I remember asking the chairman of a newly quoted public company in the 1980s what was the benefit of a public quote to him. He said, "Very simple. I can offer employees a share option. That has enabled me to attract people who would otherwise not have come to the company." I hope that the Government will, even at this late time, have second thoughts on the proposal.

1.48 pm

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on securing this debate. He has pursued this particular campaign with vigour and made his views known to the Government and people outside. I hope that we can agree on one thing—that our party is the party of wider share ownership. Since 1979 the number of individuals holding shares has increased from 3 million to 10 million. Many of those first bought shares in privatised companies. That was a policy that we pursued vigorously. Around 2 million people now hold personal equity plans and getting on for 2 million hold shares or options under all-employee share and option schemes. Those are achievements of which we can be proud. However, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary does not believe that that goes far enough and she is working on other ideas to try to expand yet further the number of those owning shares. We very much wish to encourage share ownership.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover has set out his views forcefully. He advocates share options as incentives and as a means to wider share ownership. Let me take a few moments to pick up on his theme of shedding some light on the matter by describing the Government's position.

Share options and shares both have a place in rewarding and incentivising employees. But share options and share ownership are different things. Share options can play a role in providing incentives to work and encouraging loyalty. They bring rewards if the company's share price performs well, but they carry no risk.

My hon. Friend referred to the former Chancellor, Lord Lawson. When he introduced the relief for approved share options he said that it was designed

"to increase the incentives and motivation of existing executives and key personnel by linking their rewards to performance."

The tax relief was designed to encourage share options as incentives. That was when income tax was charged at up to 60 per cent. and capital gains tax at 30 per cent. Share options are now an established part of the incentive packages of executives and, as my hon. Friend has said, others too.

In the light of the way in which share options granted under the 1984 relief had developed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided that the relief should be ended. That does not mean that companies cannot continue to use options to incentivise, but they will have to do so without a tax break. However, that will not kill off options. Many companies have been offering unapproved schemes for many years and even within approved schemes around one quarter of option holders chose to exercise their options without qualifying for the tax relief. Option schemes can and will continue without tax relief. If companies and shareholders think that options are right for their employees, they can continue to use them.

My hon. Friend mentioned some of the research undertaken by Proshare. I had the opportunity to read its latest report this morning and I shall study it further and carefully because it contains some important messages. It is interesting to note that, in reaction to the current situation, it is evident from table 5.1 in that research that some 86 per cent. of the companies who were questioned clearly, in one way or another, remain committed to using shares or share options as a way of rewarding or incentivising their staff. There is no flavour in the research furnished by Proshare that they have been put off the idea. However, I shall consider the matter carefully because it is a thorough piece of work and worthy of further reading.

My hon. Friend referred to the number of people in various schemes and I would like briefly to deal with that. My data may differ from his because he quotes from a selective sample and I quote from a sample taken by the Inland Revenue. He talked about the number of people in schemes and referred to figures of up to 600,000. Our returns show current membership at some 200,000. We talked to a number of companies with approved executive share option schemes. Some say that there are 6,000; we say 4,000. In terms of the average income, which my hon. Friend attested to based on the Proshare analysis, the Inland Revenue sample of individuals granted options in 1994–95, showed an average figure of £45,000. We may have to beg to differ because we come at these figures from different points of view.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I should like to make a little progress. I may well be able to give way to him as I come towards the end of my remarks.

My hon. Friend has argued that approved schemes are an important way in which to promote wider share ownership. But, as I have said, there are other views on the matter. I want to put on record the findings of two independent surveys. Proshare, an organisation with which, as my hon. Friend said, he is associated, drew our attention to the fact that, with regard to the actions of those who hold options,

"In 60 per cent. of cases, companies indicate that 90 per cent. or more executives immediately sell their shares"

on exercise of the option.

A second survey by the Monks partnership states:

"In the majority of companies, most employees sell all their shares on exercise. The percentage of employees who retain all of their shares is typically around 5 per cent."

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to those two perspectives because they rather weaken the case for claiming that there is an element of long-term share ownership. Either way, both surveys show that there is a marked desire by option holders to sell their shares on exercise.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I have given up some of my time so that he could make his own contribution to the debate and I want to make some progress. I shall try to give way at the end.

Those figures question the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover that approved executive share option schemes are the best vehicles to promote wider share ownership.

My hon. Friend touched on the alternatives, about which I shall say a word or two in the time remaining.

Share ownership is important to some people. I remember meeting the managing director of one of our regional electricity companies who told me of a modestly paid linesman who, at the time of privatisation, had bought shares and had continued to invest through one of the schemes that I have mentioned, save-as-you-earn. He was incentivised. He would tell his managing director just to keep the share price going up. We understand that psychology.

But there are alternatives. Profit sharing schemes allow an employer to give an employee free shares worth up to £8,000 a year. Around a million people currently hold shares in those schemes. Save-as-you-earn schemes give tax relief to employees who save up to buy shares by means of exercising share options under the scheme. Again, about a million people have a stake in that scheme. Some of my hon. Friend's constituents in Dover, working for P and O, also follow that route. I looked at that company's annual report and found that it, too, had a SAYE scheme.

Both those schemes have to be offered widely to employees. Both are designed to encourage employees to hold their shares and both really do achieve wider share ownership.

My hon. Friend claims that profit sharing and save as you earn schemes are not flexible enough, so in addition we need approved share option schemes. Let me put that point into context. About 4,000 companies currently have approved share option schemes. They currently cover some 200,000 employees—less than 1 per cent. of the private sector work force. Profit sharing schemes and save-as-you-earn schemes cover nearly 2 million people—one in eight of the total private sector work force—covering, in 1993–94, shares worth more than £1.5 billion in total. That is evidence that the schemes are popular and work.

We have not closed our minds to the way in which those schemes operate and are constructed. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said, the door is still open for us to receive representations. Already many, including one important representative from the high street, have made some constructive suggestions on the matter. We also have, as I have said, personal equity plans and venture capital trusts, which are a further way of disseminating wider share ownership. I said that I would try to find a moment to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, and I now do so.

My figures were taken from Inland Revenue statistics. The figure of 600,000 shows the widespread numbers of people in low income groups who have come into share option schemes. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear that in mind. In the Budget, we should be looking at helping many people on low incomes own a stake in the country. Even if they have to sell their first round of share options, they may not have to sell their second one. Once they have sold their first one and repaid their mortgage, they will be in a position to hold shares for the long term.

To paraphrase the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend can say that but I cannot possibly comment at this stage, although I have noted carefully what he had to say.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover also touched on the smaller company and the start-up company. It is important to put it on record that there are ways in which a company can organise its initial issue of equity to deal with the recruitment and retention of people who are there at the start and who may well be anticipating future increases in the value of the company, so their getting a share in the future gain is not wholly reliant on the issue of share options.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover for securing this opportunity for both of us to shed a little more light on this particularly important subject and to put it on the record. Our minds are certainly not closed on reviewing modifications to the save as you earn and profit sharing schemes and my hon. Friend has done the House a service in securing this important debate.

Solihull Hospital

1.59 pm

I am pleased to have the opportunity in this short Adjournment debate to bring to the Floor of the House an issue that is tremendously important to the residents of Solihull and east Birmingham.

First, may I give the House a little history? After decades of campaigning and fund-raising—much by local organisations—the new Solihull district hospital opened in August 1994, at a cost of about £35 million. In the following 12 months, it was twice turned down for trust status and it now has a deficit of £7.8 million a year hanging over it.

Following an auditor's report by Price Waterhouse, a consultation document on the future of the hospital has been drawn up by Solihull health authority. That consultation ends this Friday.

The solution favoured by the health authority is to merge Solihull district hospital with Birmingham Heartlands hospital in east Birmingham, under the Heartlands management. Neither I nor anyone else concerned about the future of health care in Solihull and east Birmingham pretends that things can go on as they are—£7.8 million is a massive deficit and something has to be done. But neither can anyone underestimate the anger and sadness among people that things should ever have been allowed to get into this position.

The new Solihull general hospital not only gives local people good local hospital care but is an important part of their community. There has been a hospital in Solihull for years, but everyone united around the new building. Its construction was a goal that everyone shared. The hospital is a source of civic pride, and rightly so. Its doctors and nurses are highly respected, its new facilities greatly admired and its independence is valued.

At a time when health care is too often judged on a profit and loss account, none of us should ever forget that that sense of civic pride and local worth is to be valued and preserved.

There is a real question about how a new hospital has managed to run up such a large debt in such a short space of time. I ask the Minister to consider three questions, which seem to be at the root of the hospital's difficulties. Why was the estimated cost of running the new hospital so wide of the mark? Why did the hospital management fail to bill health authorities for care carried out? Why was the estimate of the number of patients that would be repatriated from other local hospitals so badly over-estimated?

Solihull hospital has suffered from both poor management and lack of support from the regional health authority. Frankly, it was foolhardy to proceed on the basis that 20,000 patients would be repatriated from Heartlands hospital, when it was only estimating 14,000. Indeed, had repatriation from Heartlands and the south Birmingham acute unit run at the rate forecast, those two hospitals would probably have found themselves in financial difficulty. It was unforgivable that the information system at the new hospital was so poor that some purchasers were not billed for care given.

Solihull hospital was planned in an era of planned hospital provision. When it opened, it was into the era of the national health service internal market. No one, but no one, seems to have done anything to help the hospital to make that difficult transition.

If the management system had been better, the hospital had been offered price support when its planned activity level was reached and the regional health authority had helped with the pressures associated with the opening of the new accident and emergency department, as had been discussed, it might have been a different story.

As it was, the new hospital seemed never to stand a chance. Those who work there and those whose health care it was planned to meet were let down by poor management, bad planning and the lack of apparent will to make the hospital the success that it deserved to be.

I do not think I use too strong a term when I say that local people feel betrayed. Many of the problems facing the hospital should and could have been foreseen. The people of Solihull and east Birmingham have paid the price for poor management and planning.

Whatever our feelings, however, we know that we must look to the future. The public are offered two choices. Either the hospital merges with Heartlands, or it closes. If it merges, there will be reduced accident and emergency facilities, in-patient admissions and some reduced paediatric care. Some children's services will no longer be available at the Solihull hospital. What a choice—in fact, no choice at all.

The feeling against both those options is overwhelming. From Solihull hospital consultants to patient support groups, from parish councils such as Bickenhill to the Solihull borough council, the options seem to carry no support. The community health council in Solihull does not support them, nor does the council in east Birmingham. People accept the need to deal with the crisis, but they feel strongly that other solutions ought to be considered.

The final decision is likely to land on the Minister's desk. When he comes to that decision, I ask him to consider the following. First, many of the recommendations of Price Waterhouse, which would reduce the deficit, could be implemented if Solihull hospital remained independent—there is wide agreement that those savings amount to £4 million, which is half the current yearly deficit.

Secondly, it was unreasonable to expect the repatriation of patients from neighbouring hospitals to occur within a six-month period. That is not to say that it will not happen and that contracts cannot increase, but it needs to be targeted over a long and more realistic period and financial support has to be offered to the hospital while that transition is made.

Thirdly, the regional health authority should support the new hospital while it is carrying the high capital costs for the new building. Fourthly, the hospital needs an efficient management system, so that it can bill accurately and give management the information it needs.

If those things were done even now, local people feel that Solihull could retain an independent hospital. I urge the Minister strongly to give serious consideration to their wishes. If it is thought that past errors cannot be rectified and if the hospital cannot remain independent, I ask him to consider the alternatives that were not included in the "Difficult Choices" document.

Above all, I ask that any changes allow Solihull hospital to keep its 24-hour accident and emergency service. The pressure on Birmingham accident and emergency departments, including Heartlands, from the closure of the general hospital is immense. It is not so long since Birmingham Members of Parliament were telling the Minister of the crisis in hospital queues in Birmingham accident and emergency departments. The closure of any further accident and emergency facilities could jeopardise the progress that has been made in the past 12 months.

Only last week, the community grieved over the death of a 15-year-old schoolboy, Jamie Hoccom, from meningitis. He was taken to Solihull hospital and had to be transferred. I do not suggest that that had any effect on his care. I merely point out that, in an emergency, minutes matter.

There are alternatives, yet no work seems to have been done on developing them. The option that is being put to the public is not a merger, but a takeover. People fear that Solihull hospital will become an outpost and a subsidiary, not an equal partner. They worry that, if financial problems arise at Heartlands, Solihull hospital's services will be cut. Closure or takeover is not what people want; independence or partnership is what they ask for.

The campaign run by the people of Solihull and east Birmingham to secure their hospital has been tremendous. The leadership of Solihull borough council and its hospital sub-committee, to which I pay tribute, the campaigning zeal shown, in particular, by the Solihull News and the Solihull Times and the commitment of staff and patients earns them the right to have the future of their hospital considered at the highest level.

I hope that the Minister will respond this afternoon to the concerns that suggest to the people of Solihull and east Birmingham the existence of a hospital system in crisis. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

2.9 pm

I assure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) that I shall not cut into his time. I know that we all share a strong anxiety and I shall be brief.

I hope that the Minister will not mind if I say how strongly my constituents feel about this matter. I represent Meriden, the county constituency or rural part of Solihull borough. The merger poses particular difficulties for my constituents because villages such as Knowle, Dorridge, Meriden, Balsall Common and, even further afield, Cheswick Green, Earlswood and Dickens' Heath are so remote from Birmingham Heartlands hospital that it is inconceivable how transport could be arranged from them.

The demographic profile of Solihull borough, including Meriden, shows that there are many older people who are living longer, who need more hospital care and who do not have cars. It is difficult to imagine how their transport to Birmingham Heartlands could be arranged. This is a matter of enormous importance not only to Solihull council—I share the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) of the leadership it has given—but to the consultants. There is a united view that a merger with Birmingham Heartlands would not be beneficial.

Closure of the hospital is inconceivable, as, with Stafford and elsewhere, it was the flagship of the Government's building programme in the midlands. To consider closing it because of a £7.8 million deficit would defy belief.

My hon. Friend the Minister has stated—and I welcome it—that after the detailed consultation with local people, including my constituents,

"no decision has been made about the level and type of services provided at Solihull Hospital. This will only be done when the residents of Solihull and those in the surrounding areas have had the opportunity to express their views. The Health Commission will then consider carefully all proposals to ensure local services are provided in the best possible way."

Will my hon. Friend the Minister be more specific in his response about what role the Health Commission plays, what powers it has and what thoughts can be communicated to it by Solihull council, local Members of Parliament and others who are concerned about the matter?

My hon. Friend continues:

"If it is thought that a merger is the best way of providing those services, there would then be a further full public consultation."

Will he expand on that and tell us in some detail how it would work and what we can do to ensure that we get the right message?

I mentioned transport. I emphasise what the hon. Member for Yardley said about the importance of accident and emergency. We have provided a flagship facility for Solihull residents. The loss of a full and proper service—and I do not accept this suggestion—and its replacement by some sort of 20-hour attendance system would require assurances that the service was full and proper and could cope with a real emergency.

I am concerned about the children's ward, although I understand the problem of staffing and obtaining doctors. I will conclude to allow my colleagues to speak. To judge from the mailbag at my advice bureaux over the past few months and in every other way, this has been the key issue affecting the rural part of Solihull, which is my constituency of Meriden.

2.15 pm

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) on securing this debate so that we can discuss the future of Solihull hospital before the end of the consultation period. As she explained, the hospital caters not only for Solihull but for some of our constituents in Yardley and Hodge Hill who are referred there by their general practitioners, especially by GP fundholders. The one doctor in my constituency who has told me that he uses Solihull hospital was the first—and, I think, is still the biggest—fundholder in my constituency.

It is ironic that Solihull hospital is faced with closure or takeover as a direct result of the internal market imposed on the health service by the Government. That is the blunt fact. We are told that the catchment area—I know that the phrase is out of date because of the changes in the health service, but it is a phrase used by management of Heartlands hospital—of Solihull hospital is too small. However, it is no different from what it was when the hospital was originally planned. Provision should have been made for proper funding but, because of the workings of the internal market, it is not going to get the custom—we have to use such phrases now—that it needs to be financially viable. It is a matter of money. It is not a matter of what will provide the best health service for the people of Solihull and east Birmingham.

To be fair to the management of Birmingham Heartlands hospital, they tell me that it was not their idea that they should take over Solihull hospital. They were approached by the regional health authority and asked if they would save Solihull hospital. What the RHA really asked was for the management of Heartlands hospital to save the Government's face. The reasons for the problems in Solihull have nothing to do with the care provided by doctors or nurses and everything to do with the internal market.

What is now proposed by Solihull health authority is that there should be, in the words of the Heartlands management, again one hospital on two sites. I am concerned about the effect of that on those of my constituents who look to Solihull hospital for their care. I am even more concerned about the overwhelming majority of my constituents who look for their care to Birmingham Heartlands hospital. With the closure of the general hospital in Birmingham, almost all my constituents have come into the catchment area of Heartlands hospital.

Although the proposals have not been spelled out yet, some people in east Birmingham will be told that they must go to Solihull hospital. They will be told by the management of the combined hospital that they must go to Solihull for operations that would previously have been undertaken at Heartlands hospital. We have not yet been told which operations will be involved.

Similarly, some people in Solihull will be told that they must go to Heartlands hospital—there will be no choice in the so-called internal market—for their operations. That is bound to mean greater pressure on services at Heartlands, especially on emergency services, which, in turn, will mean a deterioration in service for my constituents who live in its catchment area and who depend on its services.

We are told by the management of Heartlands hospital that the specialists there will provide cover for what is described as an outpost at Solihull. I make no apology for using that word, because it is the word used by the management of Heartlands hospital. That is how they conceive of the Solihull site: an outpost to be covered by consultants currently working at Heartlands. If consultants are covering an outpost several miles away, it follows that they will not be giving all the time that they presently give to my constituents served by Heartlands. That is a deterioration in the service enjoyed by my constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Yardley asked why we could not have a partnership between the hospitals. I accept that there are problems in departments, such as paediatrics, which face difficult decisions. Those problems could be met by a partnership between the two hospitals, but we are told that this cannot be done. We are told, with specific reference to the paediatric speciality—the children's ward to which the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) referred—that a partnership arrangement would spread resources too thinly. Why would a partnership, but not a merger, spread resources too thinly? That does not make clinical sense. The same situation would apply to both.

We put that point to the management of the Heartlands hospital and were told that, because of the consultants, they had to take over Solihull and have one hospital on two sites instead of a partnership to provide the expertise needed by Solihull. In fact, we were told that the consultants would refuse to provide cover for Solihull unless it were a merged takeover hospital. The management of Birmingham Heartlands hospital said that they could insist that consultants provide cover only by giving them an instruction to do so—and they could give that instruction only if they were allowed to take over Solihull so that it became one hospital on two sites. If that is true, it is a deplorable comment on the state of the national health service in both east Birmingham and Solihull.

2.20 pm

I am glad of the opportunity to respond to such an important debate, and I thank hon. Members for expressing their views in a forthright manner. I also acknowledge the presence on the Front Bench beside me of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who has campaigned vigorously on the issue. Although he may be obliged to remain silent, I assure the House that he has not been silent in pressing the hospital's case in his constituency. He has also arranged a number of meetings with me, and led a delegation from the local newspaper, the Solihull News, when a petition was presented to me.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris) has an interest in the hospital because, although it is slightly outwith the boundaries of her constituency, many of her constituents use it as well as Birmingham Heartlands NHS trust. I am aware—from what I have read in the press, and from what hon. Members have said and written to me—of the intense local debate in Solihull about the future provision of health services in general, and about the hospital in particular. Although those issues are intertwined, they are nevertheless separate issues and must not be confused.

In her opening remarks, the hon. Member for Yardley seemed to suggest a predicated merger of Solihull and Birmingham Heartlands. That is not the case. The matters that are currently out for consultation relate solely to the local health authority's future proposals for the purchasing and structure of health care for the people of Solihull. Of course, any purchasing decisions will bear on the future of Solihull hospital, but it would be wrong to misunderstand the position. It is not inevitable that a merger will follow. I hope that the House will understand that, and that the public debate will be conducted in that knowledge.

We await the conclusion of public consultation and the steps that will follow. It would not be helpful for either the people of Solihull or those working in the hospital to assume that future directions are written in stone; much remains to be decided. Any proposal for merger of the two hospitals would be separate, and would have to be submitted for further consultation.

I acknowledge that there would be further consultation in the event of a merger. However, the exercise is aimed at reversing a £7.8 million deficit, and the only financial proposals that have been advanced so far depend on such a merger. If someone somewhere has a different set of figures presenting other options, the people of Solihull would be delighted to see them.

Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I do not intend to anticipate what the consultation will reveal. Announcements will be made in due course, and if the matter arrives on the desks of Ministers they will view it with an open mind. I hope that my assurance will be accepted by the hon. Lady, her hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) and my hon. Friends who have an interest in the matter.

I understand that, in the heat of public debate, it is more difficult to tease out the various strands—to identify where consultation on one suggestion ends and the possibility of another proposal may well begin. It is my purpose, however, to reassure the hon. Lady and the people of Solihull that nothing can be said to be a foregone conclusion.

The consultation document proposes that, in some instances, services that have been provided at Solihull hospital will in future be purchased from other hospitals in the area, notably Birmingham Heartlands NHS trust. That proposal makes the fairly common assumption that an ultimate merger may well be suggested. As I have said, public consultation on the plans continues, and I shall not pre-empt the outcome.

I can, however, give some idea of the timetable. The consultation period is due to end on 27 October; the health authority will then consider the responses that it has received. I believe that the outcome will be discussed at a public meeting of the authority on 10 November.

Although my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) did not raise the point in the debate, he has spoken to me before—along with my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull—and has asked me whether I would be prepared to meet a delegation from Solihull metropolitan borough council to discuss the future provision of health services in the town. I should be happy to meet such a delegation and listen to its views, once the current public consultation is complete but before any final decision is made. I hope that my hon. Friends will take that as an earnest of my good intentions, and of my understanding that this is a serious public issue.

The hon. Member for Yardley set out the background rather well. We are clearly not where we expected, and would like, to be. The financial problems facing Solihull hospital are extremely difficult. The hon. Lady asked three questions about what had happened and the implications of those events. I understand that a survey has been carried out by Price Waterhouse, and the health authority's external auditors have also been asked to investigate the position immediately; their findings are being examined very carefully. I do not wish to predict what Solihull health authority's audit committee will say, but it is considering the findings and is expected to report its recommendations to the authority by early next year.

That, too, is a separate matter. I do not suggest that those investigations will have any particular relevance, other than in examining the past. As the hon. Lady said, we need to look to the hospital's future.

During the investigation of the problems, things have not been standing still. The health authority, which is managerially responsible for Solihull hospital, has replaced the previous management team with an experienced team of managers whose task is to ensure the continuation of the day-to-day management of the hospital, and the provision of a good local service for the people of Solihull.

Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden that there is no question of there being an overall shortage of funds in the area. Over the past five years, there has been a 6.7 per cent. real terms increase in Solihull health authority's budget allocation from West Midlands regional health authority. The problem lies in the unexpected outcome of developments in the hospital itself. I understand the serious concern about what appear from the Price Waterhouse report—which has been published—to be serious misunderstandings about the hospital's position both before and during the period of its application for trust status. I assure the House that I take that very seriously. We shall await with interest the outcome of the consultation process and read with great interest what the health authority's auditors say, because that must be examined.

Finally, I assure the House that it is our concern that the people of Solihull have the best possible health service, to which they are entitled. The debate has been extremely useful in illuminating the issues, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Private Business

Loch Leven And Lochaber Water Power Order Confirmation

Mr. Michael Forsyth presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Loch Leven and Lochaber Water Power; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered on Tuesday 31 October and to be printed. [Bill 179.]

Oral Answers To Questions

Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs

Middle East

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process. [36852]

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in the middle east peace process. [36857]

We warmly welcome the signing on 28 September of the interim agreement concluded between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. We look forward to the Palestinian elections, which are due to take place in the next few months. I shall visit the region early next month, which will give me the opportunity to emphasise Britain's strong political and practical support for the peace process.

I welcome the Secretary of State to his new position. I look forward to his contribution to the middle east peace process. I am sure that he would wish to join me in welcoming the start of the withdrawal of the Israeli defence forces from Jenin today, which is a sign of good will, but will he also join me in condemning the decision by the United States Congress to attempt to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which is in direct contravention of international law and the prohibition contained in United Nations Security Council resolution 242 on the acquisition of territory by force?

Will the Secretary of State also, however, welcome the decision by the President of the United States to delay the implementation of that in order to help the peace process—

Order. Questions are getting enormously long, especially for the first one. We ought to get off to a better start than that.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of welcome. I also appreciate the beginning of the withdrawal by the Israeli forces from the west bank. As far as the position of the US Congress is concerned, we believe that that is an unhelpful development at this stage and we are pleased that the United States Administration has dissociated itself from it.

Does the Minister agree that, having signed a peace treaty with Israel, in a country such as Jordan continued support for the peace process depends on ordinary people noticing clear benefits, including economic benefits, from peace? Does he accept that Jordan suffers from an exceptional burden of foreign debt, which inhibits attempts to develop the economy? What steps would the Government be prepared to take to help reduce that burden?

I do, indeed, recognise that problem. We have already forgiven all aid debt and we were also happy to help at the last Paris Club rescheduling of Jordan's debt. We have a £4 million per annum bilateral aid programme focusing on education and telecommunications. I do recognise that there are important objectives in helping the Jordanian economy. The United Kingdom is playing a substantial part in that process.

I congratulate my right. hon. and learned Friend on his promotion and on his decision to go to the middle east in person. Does he agree that it is somewhat anomalous that Israel, which is the only democracy in the middle east, has yet to receive a royal visit? Can he give us an assurance that one may be quite imminent?

In the past year there has, of course, been a visit to Israel by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh in a personal capacity. Naturally, royal visits are important issues and they are considered with regard to all the implications. I am sure that the continuing improvement in the overall climate in the middle east will make high-level visits to Israel continue to improve in the years to come.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider that, at this stage in the peace process, the winding up of the Arab boycott office would be a sensible step forward? Will he make representations to that effect to Arab Governments?

Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I believe that the boycott is already withering on the vine. It would highly beneficial if it were to be completely terminated, and that is increasingly the view of many Arab countries in the region as well.

When the Secretary of State visits the middle east shortly, will he try to seek a meeting with President Assad of Syria? If he is able to secure such a meeting, will he press the Syrians to enter the peace process, as that could be the most significant thing to assist the process?

I hope to be in Damascus during my visit to the middle east, and I agree with the hon. Lady that it would be very beneficial if Syria were to approach the peace process in a constructive and forward-looking way. There have been some modest signs of progress on that front, although we appreciate the difficulties and sensitivities involved. But I believe that Syria is virtually the last of the building blocks to be put in place to help to achieve a comprehensive peace in the middle east. Therefore, the British Government would very much wish to encourage Syria's involvement.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend describe the nature of the assistance that the Government are providing to the Palestinian community?

We are giving substantial cash help towards the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere, and we have also indicated a willingness to assist in the elections which are to take place in Gaza and in the election of Palestinian representatives. An EU-led group of observers will go to the middle east, and the United Kingdom will play an important part in that process.

May I, from this side of the House, offer my congratulations to Chairman Arafat and to Prime Minister Rabin on continuing the peace progress in the middle east and on this morning's developments? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the peace process is to be successful, both the Israelis and the Palestinians must experience real advantages—security for the Israelis and self-determination and prosperity for the Palestinians? On the latter point, will the Foreign Secretary indicate what further international efforts are being made to spread and speed up the flow of development aid, both to Gaza and to the west bank?

May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the assumption of his new shadow responsibilities? I very much agree with the view that there must be clear benefits to both Israel and the Palestinians from the peace process, and I suggest that that is already happening in various ways in the middle east. Israel is increasing its links with the Arab countries and is becoming a normal country in the region, while the Palestinians are beginning to realise many of their aspirations. The international community can help in that process, particularly in the economic field.

Intergovernmental Conference

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the objectives of his Department for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement. [36853]

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out our priorities for the intergovernmental conference, notably in this House on 1 March. We want a European Union which is open, flexible, free-trading, efficient and responsive to popular concerns.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to do all that he can to promote our vision of an enlarged and outward-looking community of nation states? Will he utterly reject the proposals published by the Labour party earlier this month which would result in that party giving up the British right of veto and would remove our right to opt out permanently of European proposals such as the single currency and the social chapter?

I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I thought it remarkable that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who speaks for the Opposition on foreign affairs, made no reference in his speech to the Labour party conference to what appeared in a document published by the Labour party on the same day, which said that there will be no permanent opt-outs with regard to any future Labour Government. The only question appears to be when Labour would surrender British interests, and not whether.

Following the remarkable speech by the Defence Secretary to the Conservative party conference, the Foreign Secretary told a group of Conservative Back-Benchers that he had "learnt the lessons". What lessons has he learnt?

I do not recall seeing the hon. Gentleman at that meeting. Therefore, I had better simply say to him that I do not recollect making any such remark.

May I first, as chairman of that meeting, endorse my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to the previous question? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are a number of indications that the Government's hope for a sensible approach at the IGC is shared by our European partners? Does he agree that the best way of achieving agreement is for the Government to continue to approach the IGC in a constructive and positive spirit?

Yes, I do believe that that is right. We have specific proposals in a number of areas that the conference will consider. We have already published our proposals with regard to the Western European Union and defence matters, and the Government are currently considering a number of other matters also. I assure my hon. Friend that we will always approach such a sensitive and important issue constructively: seeking to identify areas where there is the prospect of agreement, but making clear those matters upon which the United Kingdom might not be able to support proposals from other quarters.

What is the Government's objective at the IGC with regard to the extension of qualified majority voting? As the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers have committed themselves to securing reform of the common agricultural policy—which all hon. Members support—how will the Foreign Secretary achieve it without extending QMV in that context?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, qualified majority voting exists already in many areas. We believe that those areas that currently require unanimity do so because of the profound importance of the matters covered. Therefore, we do not believe that it is appropriate to extend qualified majority voting beyond its present remit.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would make good sense for the Government to go to the IGC with some detailed, positive proposals that are likely to find favour with a number of our European Union partners? For example, I refer to the question of the number of commissioners, or the length of time and the interval that major countries may hold the presidency of the European Union, and those other areas where my right hon. and learned Friend will be carrying his thinking further forward.

My hon. Friend is right to say that a range of practical improvements can be made with regard to the workings of various institutions. In addition to the areas referred to by my hon. Friend, we are also considering the European Court of Justice very carefully. We believe that we will be able to make a number of useful proposals in that sphere which would result in the improvement of the court and that might respond to certain recent concerns. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has made a viable and constructive contribution on the reflections committee, which is helping to prepare the ground for the intergovernmental conference.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the statement passed at the Labour party conference, which was referred to by his hon. Friend? It says:

"a common approach on foreign and security policy needs to bind all member states and believes therefore that decisions must continue to be taken by unanimity".

If the Foreign Secretary agrees with that statement, why does he continue to misrepresent our policy?

I have no need to misrepresent the Labour party's policy. While the Labour party has indicated its views on common foreign and security policy, in the same document it says that it wishes to abandon Britain's right of veto in the:

"areas of social, industrial, regional and environmental policy".

I could ask why the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends do not give the same publicity to that declaration as they give to other assurances that they make occasionally.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend then confirm that the Government will not give up the veto under any circumstances?

That is, indeed, right. We believe that one of the great strengths of the European Union will be the creation of a Europe with which the peoples of Europe are comfortable. That requires all the people of Europe—not just those in the United Kingdom—to believe that, when important national interests are at stake, changes that could have profound implications for their well being and quality of life will be made only on the basis of unanimity.

Lockerbie

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the role of Mr. Andrew Green of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to investigations into the Lockerbie crime. [36854]

From 1988 to early 1991, Mr. Green was head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Department responsible for the international aspects of the Lockerbie affair.

He certainly was. What possible reasons did Mr. Green have for agreeing with the Americans in January 1989 that Lockerbie should be played low key?

I am not aware of any such agreement. I shall look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman, if I may.

In view of the unsatisfactory, ignorant and evasive nature of that reply, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment for the seventh time.

Sir Teddy Taylor.

Could the Minister indicate—

Order. I am sorry, but, as the hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise the matter on the Adjournment, the question is closed.

Bosnia

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met other Foreign Ministers to discuss Bosnia. [36855]

I last met European Union colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 2 October.

Does the Secretary of State realise that when they gave NATO the job of dealing with Bosnia and bombing a number of the Serb strongholds in the name of the United Nations, it was a serious qualitative change in the method of approach and that there will be serious misgivings in future if it is repeated elsewhere?

On another issue, is the Minister aware that for the past two years a number of people in the House and elsewhere have been saying that the Muslims needed weapons and that the embargo should be lifted? How come, in the aftermath of the bombing, the Bosnian army was able to advance more than 100 miles, capturing 20 towns and villages, with all the weapons at hand? Where did they get them from?

I think that two explanations for what the hon. Gentleman inquires about are, first, that despite the embargo there has clearly been a supply of weapons from various countries and, secondly, Croatian regular troops were assisting the Bosnian army in western Bosnia. That clearly had significant implications for, the military advances that were made at that time.

In seeking a settlement in that part of the world will my right hon. and learned Friend do his utmost to ensure that it is comprehensive? I have in mind particularly the position of Kosovo which is hard pressed by the Serbs. If the present leverage and momentum does not enable us to relieve that pressure in Kosovo it could be the next flashpoint and the next point of escalation.

It is highly desirable, for the reasons to which my right hon. Friend refers, that any political settlement should produce stability in the region. There are two issues which it would be highly desirable to settle alongside the matter within Bosnia. One is Kosovo, to which my right hon. Friend refers, and the other is the situation in eastern Slovenia where there is great tension between Croatia and the Government in Belgrade. Clearly, it would be highly preferable if those matters could be addressed and if progress could be made. Whether that will be achieved it is too early to say, but I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is a very important objective.

Given the UN human rights monitors' reports that atrocities have been committed against Serbs in Krajina by the Croatian army, will the perpetrators, when caught, be charged with war crimes?

The hon. Lady is certainly correct to say that, sadly, atrocities have been committed against members of all the various communities. Those in Krajina who have been expelled from their homes or who have fled from their homes because of fear for their lives are as much refugees and victims of this ghastly war as those of other communities. Prosecution is obviously a matter for the prosecuting authorities.

Owing to the evident problems of command and control, can my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the participation of a Russian contingent in the peace enforcement force in Yugoslavia is not in any sense made a precondition for its deployment? Is it not important that the force be got into place when the powers on the ground believe that it should be and not when the Russians agree? They have never been a Balkan power.

It is, of course, very important that any implementation force should be ready to take over its responsibilities as soon as a peace settlement is agreed which would then require implementation. The Russians have indicated an interest in serving as part of that force. It is desirable that they should participate. Discussions that are taking place at the moment have made some progress but they still have to resolve certain outstanding issues as to the likely nature of their involvement, the implications for the way in which the implementation force would operate and those particular functions which they could best contribute towards resolving. It is desirable that the implementation force should be broadly based and I think that the current discussions will help to achieve a satisfactory outcome which will not in any way damage the operational effectiveness and coherence of the implementation force. That is a crucial objective.

Treaty Ratification

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to reform the procedures for the ratification of treaties. [36856]

There are no plans to change our procedures.

I am sorry to hear that because I am sure that the Minister does not wish to see a repetition of the fiasco that we saw in the House when the Maastricht treaty was being ratified and approved in parliamentary terms. Therefore does he agree that it is desirable to bring treaty-making wholly within parliamentary control so that all aspects of such treaties which can have such a massive effect on the constitution of this country can be properly considered and examined by the elected representatives of the people?

I believe that ample opportunity is given for debating the provisions of a treaty, if Parliament so desires.

Western European Union

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met his Western European Union counterparts to discuss the further development of a common foreign and security policy. [36858]

The Western European Union Foreign and Defence Ministers last met in Lisbon in May this year; the outcome was published in a communiqué of the meeting, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. They will meet again in November.

I thank the Minister for that short reply. How are the various and differing views in the reflections committee, especially regarding the future relationship between the Western European Union and the European Union, developing, and which, if any, countries are still pushing for the WEU to be a fourth pillar of the European Union?

Our stance has been laid out in a document on our views to the WEU that we have put around. The primary concerns in that document are not to erode our national sovereignty in terms of the command of our forces to support the integrity of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; not to duplicate NATO to maintain the important transatlantic dimension in the alliance, not to jeopardise that in any way, and to create a practical capacity to carry out Petersburg missions in particular. So far, there has been a wide variety of views in the reflections group on this matter, including the subordination of the WEU to the EU, which we have resisted.

I take it from my hon. Friend the Minister's answer, therefore, that he is against a merger between the EU and the WEU. Will he also confirm that, with regard to WEU enlargement, Her Majesty's Government would resist an application by any state to become a WEU member unless it was already a full member of NATO—and by full member I mean part of the integrated military structure of NATO—so that it could fully meet any commitment under article 5 of the Washington treaty?

My hon. Friend is right that full WEU membership requires article 5 commitment and therefore membership of NATO, so that is correct.

Does the Minister acknowledge that up to 250,000 Europeans died during the three years that it took NATO to recognise the need to intervene powerfully in Bosnia, and does he therefore acknowledge that, notwithstanding anything that the Secretary of State for Defence may say, an urgent need exists for an effective European security structure?

I do not think that the two halves of the hon. Gentleman's question necessarily connect. It is not clear how an external body could necessarily prevent a civil war if the people of that country are determined to have one.

Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that a number of us who serve on the North Atlantic Assembly have found that certain members of the assembly do not always have the same agenda for the operation of WEU as we do and that they may want to use the WEU to weaken NATO and the NATO connection? Will he be aware of that and ensure that the British position keeps the relationship with American forces in NATO very much in mind?

I hear what my right hon. Friend says. Resisting that sort of idea, proposal and initiative is the front and centre of our policy in Europe and in the WEU.

The Minister will be aware that one of the areas agreed by the Government for joint action under common foreign security policy is nuclear non-proliferation. Why then does he not use the next WEU meeting to speak up for the 80 per cent. of British people who want Britain to condemn the French nuclear tests? If he really believes that closer integration in Europe would cut Britain's ties around Europe, why does he not give some support to Australia and New Zealand, which find that Britain is the only Commonwealth country that supports France against them? Does he not recognise that tough talk in Blackpool and in Westminster on protecting Britain's security interests cannot conceal the shameful silence on this matter that has made this Government the willing accomplice of France?

It is interesting to see the hon. Gentleman's background coming back to haunt us. This is of course a clear matter of the French national Government's interest in security. We take those matters seriously, unlike the Labour party. The French Government have clearly said that, like ourselves, they are committed to a comprehensive test ban treaty being successfully achieved in 1996 and the tests are a step towards that aim.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that rather than listening to the muddled and inconsistent thinking of the Opposition, he will underline the NATO transatlantic link and not allow the WEU to be folded into the European Union in the way that some Opposition Members have suggested?

I am entirely in sympathy with my hon. Friend's comments. The NATO alliance has worked extraordinarily well in the past 40 years to preserve the peace of Europe. The transatlantic dimension is a key part of that alliance and we will preserve that as a major part of our policy.

Cyprus

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the current situation in Cyprus. [36859]

The present division of Cyprus is unacceptable. We are giving active support to the UN Secretary-General's mission of good offices which we believe offers the best hope of a just and lasting solution.

What does the Secretary of State have to say about the plight of the enclaved people who live in the occupied north of Cyprus and who are subjected daily to human rights violations and abuses? Does he not agree that it is about time that the British Government, who are a guarantor power in the area, exerted their influence on the illegal regime of Mr. Denktas and on Turkey itself?

When there is a division of a territory such as in Cyprus there are always personal tragedies and people caught up in it. That should give added impetus to the attempts to achieve reunification of the island on an acceptable basis. It is that which will offer the best prospect for the welfare of the people to whom the hon. Lady referred.

To what extent does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that we may be able to use Cyprus's application to join the European Union and Turkey's desire to have closer trading links with the EU as leverage to try to bring both sides in the north and south together, living in a bi-communal settlement?

It is indeed the case that negotiations with Cyprus about possible EU membership are due to begin at the end of the intergovernmental conference. I have no doubt that the negotiations would have much better prospects of success if we could see political progress in Cyprus which could lead to the unification of the island. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that as a factor to which I hope that all those involved in the dispute will give proper attention.

Since the European Union decided to negotiate the accession of Cyprus into the Union, the Greek Cypriots have withdrawn their support from the United Nations confidence-building measures. What reasons have the Greek Cypriots given for that reversal of policy?

A number of factors may have led to that. The important objective is to look to the future. The next step will be for the American presidential envoy to visit the island soon for talks with the various leaders. That should be encouraged and I hope that in future the confidentiality that is so crucial to any prospect of progress will be respected by communal leaders on both sides of the island.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that no party to the problems in Cyprus should be allowed to exercise a veto on Cyprus's entry to the European Community? Does he agree that there needs to be good political will on both sides of the argument and that that is clearly lacking in the Turkish Cypriot community?

As my hon. Friend said, there can be no veto. It goes without saying that progress that would lead towards reunification of the island would improve the prospects for success in the complex negotiations. All accession negotiations are difficult and when those negotiations involve an island which is currently divided like Cyprus there are difficulties which the Community has not had to address in the same way in the past.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's observation that there must be no veto on Cyprus's application. Is he aware that the Prime Minister has told the House that it would be extremely difficult for Cyprus to join the European Union unless the division of the island is resolved? Does he not realise that that is an open invitation to Turkey to rule out Cyprus's membership by making it difficult to resolve the division of the island? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now correct that error by giving unequivocal support to Cyprus in its application to join the European Union, thereby ruling out any Turkish veto?

Of course we look forward to a successful Cypriot negotiation for accession to the European Union. It is simple common sense to say, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done, that an island that is divided and has not had political progress towards reunification will have much more difficult negotiations than would otherwise apply. The hon. Gentleman is being unrealistic if he does not recognise that fact, which is well understood in Cyprus by all the communities concerned.

Inward Investment

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical help his Department offers to potential investors in the United Kingdom. [36860]

We give advice to potential investors about opportunities in Britain. We put them in touch with commercial contacts here and we set up fact-finding visits to the United Kingdom. We have had great success in doing so in recent years.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he encourage his officials who are providing the information to potential inward investors to consider with special care the opportunities in the north-west of England, particularly Blackpool and the Fylde coast, where there is an extremely skilled high-tech work force? Is he aware that the area has not been successful so far in attracting inward investment in any significant quantity from overseas, despite the skill of the work force?

I hear what my hon. Friend says. Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff overseas promote inward investment to all areas of the United Kingdom and encourage potential investors to take advantage of skilled work forces wherever they are. I shall draw what my hon. Friend has said to their attention.

I welcome every pound of investment that comes into the country, but there is a phenomenon to which I must draw the Minister's attention. Is he aware that it is much easier for a rich Nigerian who is well-connected with the present military Government to enter the United Kingdom than it is for an asylum seeker who is threatened with gaol or worse, who now, under leaked Government proposals, will be told that he or she must return to Nigeria, with all the human rights and civil rights problems that exist there? Is that just and is it fair?

The hon. Gentleman opens up a completely different matter. If he tables a question about it, I shall willingly answer.

Middle East

10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's contribution to the middle east peace process. [36861]

We are a major donor to the Palestinian people, providing £83 million over three years. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said earlier, Britain will be making a substantial contribution to the EU-organised observation of the Palestinian elections.

During my right hon. Friend's visit to the middle east, and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, will they be raising the plight of the dispersed Palestinians who are not on the west bank but in other countries in the region? Is it not wholly unsatisfactory that the future of those Palestinians should depend on talks between the PLO and the Israeli Government? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that he recognises the Government's responsibility, as a member of the United Nations, to look after displaced people wherever they may be?

I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an extremely important matter and I undertake to do what he asks.

When the Under-Secretary and the Foreign Secretary visit the middle east, they will presumably meet PLO representatives. Will the Minister tell us whom they will be meeting and where they will be meeting them?

I am both pleased and sorry to correct the hon. Gentleman. Actually I am a Minister of State. Given the direction of my recent career, it may be only a matter of time before I am an Under-Secretary.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I will both be making visits to the region in the near future. I can assure him that we shall be meeting as many of the relevant people as possible to make progress in this most important matter.

Former Yugoslavia

11.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in former Yugoslavia. [38663]

Although skirmishing has continued in north-west Bosnia, the situation is generally much quieter following the ceasefire which came into effect on 12 October. We remain concerned about the continuing tense situation in eastern Slavonia.

Is the Minister aware of the claims that are made in European newspapers that United States intelligence services knew about three weeks before Srebrenica was overrun that that would take place? Is he further aware that the same intelligence services were tapping the phones of Generals Mladic and Pericic, the chiefs of staff of the Serbian army? Is he also aware that that information was not passed on to the United Nations, to UNPROFOR or to any of the NATO allies, including the Dutch, who were guarding the enclave? Does he realise that, as a result, some 8,000 Muslim men have disappeared, many presumed murdered? Will he now institute an inquiry into those claims? If they are proved to be true, what action will he take?

I do not for a moment believe that what the hon. Gentleman alleges is true. Clearly, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters but, with regard to the fall of Srebrenica, I am sure that it was regretted as much by our United States allies as by ourselves.

Kashmir

12.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to pay an official visit to India to discuss Kashmir. [36864]

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to find an early opportunity to visit India. I was pleased to visit India earlier this month and discussed Kashmir and a wide range of other issues with members of the Indian Government.

Will the Government continue to bring home to the Indian Government the concern still felt in this country about continuing reports of human rights abuses by the Indian armed forces in Kashmir'? Will they impress on the authorities in New Delhi that the best thing for all involved would be for such allegations to be investigated by impartial and independent observers and for the Indian Government to give permission for such observers to go to Kashmir?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We certainly continue to be concerned about human rights in Kashmir and we have regularly raised our concerns with the Indian Government. Indeed, I did so only two weeks ago. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the Indian Prime Minister earlier this week. We welcome the policy of openness increasingly adopted by the Indian Government. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights visited Kashmir in early May. The International Committee of the Red Cross was recently granted permission to operate in Kashmir and began its initial work on 12 October.

Will the Minister confirm that India has established an independent human rights commission and that it is the British Government's policy to support the Indian Government's efforts to persuade all parties in Kashmir and Jammu to take part, at the earliest possible time consistent with security, in elections?

I can certainly confirm what the hon. Gentleman said. I can best summarise by saying that we believe that the best way forward for Kashmir involves three main steps. The first is simultaneous progress on dialogue between India and Pakistan as provided for under the 1972 Simla agreement. Without dialogue, there can be no progress. The second is improvement in human rights in Kashmir and a genuine political process there. The third is a clear cessation of external support for violence in Kashmir.

On that question of external support for violence, is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), myself and four other Members of the House a year ago were shown in Kashmir a cache of Russian arms which must have got through from Pakistan to the militants in Kashmir and could not have come by any other route? Does he mean that?

I have said repeatedly to those whom I have met in recent months that we urge the need for an end to any external support for militants in Kashmir. External support serves only to fuel the problem.

East Timor

13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Indonesia concerning their occupation of East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [36865]

We regularly raise the question of East Timor, including human rights concerns, with the Indonesians at ministerial and official level.

I am pleased to hear that the Minister does raise the matter with Indonesian officials. I hope that he takes the time to tell them that since their illegal occupation of East Timor in 1974, 200,000 people have been killed in what can only be called genocide against the Timorese people, but the British Government's so-called requests to cease such human rights violations have had no effect whatsoever principally—I suspect—because the Government are happy to supply virtually any guns or weapons, which can be used to kill people in East Timor, that the Indonesians wish to buy, and to promote trade with that country. Does he not realise that the Indonesian Government will move only if we cut off the supply of arms and consider at least some form of economic sanctions against them until they cease this brutal occupation of a country, their abuse of human rights and the killing of Timorese people?

We remain concerned about reports of continuing human rights abuses in Indonesia and in East Timor. We certainly let the Indonesian Government know of our concerns and they are well aware that their actions are in the world's limelight. As for arm sales, all sovereign states enjoy the right, under article 51 of the UN charter, to their own self-defence. Applications to export UK defence equipment are scrutinised against established criteria and internationally agreed guidelines. We do not allow the export of arms and equipment which is likely to be used for internal repression in Indonesia or East Timor.

I rise as an officer of the all-party British-Indonesian parliamentary group. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in fact, overall it benefits East Timor to be part of—perhaps—the fifth largest country in the world? Although I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that there have been human rights abuses and atrocities in Timor, the very constructive contact that the Government have with the President and Government of Indonesia is very much to the benefit of the people of East Timor, and must be continued. Indonesia is an important country, in trade, political and cultural terms, going back hundreds of years, for the United Kingdom.

We certainly urge the Indonesian Government to discuss the matter with the East Timorese. We have no evidence that UK-supplied equipment has been used for internal oppression in Indonesia or in East Timor. If the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has any evidence of it, I would willingly receive it. However, to my hon. Friend I say that, indeed, relationships are good and what he said was quite right.

As the Minister is so concerned about human rights in East Timor, why do the British Government fund the training of paramilitary police, who go on to carry out human rights abuses in East Timor? Why are the Government funding a transmigration project which is moving people from Indonesia into East Timor? Why are they funding a short-wave transmitter project, which will be used to broadcast the propaganda of the Indonesian Government? Does he think that the Government will be in the same position as they were over the Pergau dam? While the National Audit Office is carrying out its survey into the allegations that I have made—that Government aid is being used illegally in Indonesia—can he stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us that he has every confidence that that aid is being used legally?

The NAO, as the hon. Lady knows, is examining the question of aid to Indonesia. The review began in September and we await the result with great interest. The projects through which we contribute to the economic and social benefit of Indonesia, where 27 million people live below the poverty line despite some good economic progress, are important to those people. UK-funded projects have nothing whatever to do with any arms sales. The hon. Lady's allegations are being examined by the NAO.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way forward surely is for a settlement to be achieved by bringing all the sides together, including representatives of Portugal, to solve the problem of East Timor? Does he further agree that the Indonesian Government have spent a great deal of money on investment in East Timor and achieved a great deal for the people and the infrastructure? Given that there would be guarantees of religious freedom and special status, surely the long-term future and happiness of the people of East Timor would be better served by it remaining part of Indonesia?

We continue to believe that dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia under the United Nations Secretary-General's auspices offers the best chance of finding a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable settlement to the question of East Timor. The next meeting will be held in London in January 1996. I hope that the discussions will deal with substantive issues such as a reduction in the military presence and devolution. We also welcome the intra-East Timorese talks in Austria. I hope that those talks will continue and lead to progress. [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is trying to ask a question and he must be heard.

Madam Deputy Speaker—

Order. That will not do at all.

What can I say, Madam Speaker? I am sorry. A wee while ago, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) chided the Foreign Secretary for failing to support the Australian Prime Minister in his condemnation of French nuclear tests. Does the Minister think that the Australian Prime Minister's position on the high moral ground has been affected by his recent statements absolving the Indonesian Government of any wrongdoing in East Timor? Has the Minister had any discussions with the Australian Prime Minister on that extraordinary position, which runs against all the evidence that we have?

The issue was not raised when I met the Australian Prime Minister in Papua New Guinea recently. Therefore, I have nothing to say on the matter.

Iraq

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest developments regarding Iraq and compliance with United Nation resolutions on the release of Kuwaiti prisoners of war and missing persons. [36866]

At the September review of the United Nations sanctions, the Security Council stressed the need for Iraq to comply with all its UN obligations, including that on the Kuwait missing persons. We have stressed that Iraq must produce substantive new information on missing persons and on prisoners of war. We shall keep up the pressure.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it is outrageous that, five years after the liberation of Kuwait, the Iraqis are still defying United Nations resolutions aimed at securing the release of its prisoners of war? Further, has he noted that yesterday's border meeting between the Kuwaitis and the Iraqis has produced no progress and not one prisoner has been named to be released? Will my right hon. and learned Friend please bear in mind the distress of the Kuwaiti people and give the matter priority, while considering the wider issue of news of the enormous chemical and biological weapons stockpile, which has now been revealed to the world following the defection of Mr. Hussein Kamil? I understand that there is sufficient anthrax to destroy the world's population five times over.

We share my hon. Friend's concern about the more than 600 missing persons. As she said, the Iraqis have not yet provided any satisfactory information as to what might have happened to them. I deeply agree with my hon. Friend that the revelations in recent weeks about the development of anthrax as a weapon of mass destruction by the regime of Saddam Hussein is a clear demonstration of the brutality and irresponsibility of the regime that still rules in that country. It explains why sanctions are still necessary until the resolutions of the United Nations have been fully complied with.

Given the nature of the use of the ballot box in Iraq recently, does the Foreign Secretary agree that bringing genuine democratic processes into the region would place pressure on that regime? Does he agree that that should be started by the British Government giving full backing to the early calling of Palestinian elections to the national assembly?

It is clear that the recent so-called referendum in Iraq was a farce. It has been widely recognised as such. I believe that there is serious intent to have genuine and proper Palestinian elections. An invitation has been made to send external observers and the United Kingdom, along with many other countries, will do so. We look forward to that being an important step in the right direction in the development of the Palestinian entity.

Intergovernmental Conference

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress in the reflections group in preparation for the European Union intergovernmental conference in 1996. [36867]

There have been 10 meetings so far of the study group preparing for the intergovernmental conference. The chairman of the group, Mr. Westendorp, issued an interim report, on his own authority, on 1 September, which has been placed in the Library of the House. The group is due to present its final report to the Madrid European Council in December.

The Minister will have heard the Secretary of State, in reply to the second question this afternoon, reiterate the Government's commitment to openness in the European Union. In the light of that commitment, will he now reiterate the Government's support for the Swedish Government's decision to publish papers previously kept secret in Brussels? Will he welcome the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of The Guardian and the publication of Council minutes, and will he give us a commitment that in future the Council of Ministers, being the only legislature in the democratic world that meets in secret, will meet in public?

The British have been in the lead in many areas of transparency within the Union. The fact that we publish our minute statements, our votes and the lines that we take in each of the Councils that we attend acts as an exemplar in this. Holding Councils in public would have the effect of driving negotiations into the corridor, and that would not be in the interests of transparency.

Did my hon. Friend notice the other day that Chancellor Kohl made it quite clear, in robust and forthright language, that unless, at the IGC, Europe moved in his direction with regard to having a single defence policy by 1999, there would be a threat of war and difficult dislocations across Europe? Did my hon. Friend further notice that, in the course of that, the Commission president did not chastise Chancellor Khol for the nature of his language? Will my hon. Friend now take the opportunity to join me in so chastising him?

We will take a robust line in ensuring that our particular view on defence in Europe will be adhered to.

Can the Minister explain the conundrum between the Government's position in support of enlargement, which requires as an absolute first step the basic reform of the common agricultural policy, and their position on the veto? Is it possible to reform the CAP without affecting the veto when it is clear that Germany and other nations will not allow such reforms to take place? Therefore, how can the hon. Gentleman possibly expect enlargement to be a reality?

Very large areas of the CAP are already decided by qualified majority voting.

Brazil

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Brazil. [36868]

I am delighted to be able to tell my hon. Friend that our relations with Brazil are excellent.

In developing the theme of transatlantic co-operation, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of Brazil, one of the largest of the Atlantic nations with a GDP greater than that of Spain, and a country in which we take a considerable amount of interest? In taking forward discussions with Brazil, will he give a thought to inviting to this country next year President Cardoso, the new anglo-phile President of Brazil, who would help considerably with the development of that theme?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on instigating the debate last week which went in some depth into our relationship with Brazil. To elaborate slightly today, what he says about trade is absolutely right. United Kingdom exports to Brazil have reached record levels, exceeding £500 million in 1994 and up 56 per cent. this year. We also have an investment programme in Brazil worth £1.93 billion, and we signed an investment promotion and protection agreement in July 1994, demonstrating the depth of our commitment to that country.

With regard to the visit, I regret that I cannot give any specifics to my hon. Friend, but Her Majesty's. Government very much hope that President Cardoso will visit us again, as he did for the world war 2 celebrations.

Should it not be a feature of our developing relationship with Brazil constantly to draw attention to the growing difference between wealth and poverty there, which can be witnessed on the streets of Rio and, indeed, to the environmental problems that are developing as a result of the massive industrialisation and privatisation programmes, as witnessed by the state of the waterways, on which one can almost walk due to the effluent that is discharged into them? Is not it right that, in our relationships with such countries, particularly Brazil, we should emphasise the problems that arise?

The hon. Gentleman is right. We must not lose sight of the conditions of the poor in Brazil, particularly the street children, and of other human rights abuses, which are, of course, not limited to Brazil, but are a problem in many areas of Latin America. We concentrate on such matters in discussions with the Brazilian authorities. We also try to offer assistance in solving the problem of the Brazilian street children.

Former Yugoslavia

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's current policy towards the states making up the former Yugoslavia. [36869]

Our policy has three aims: to save lives, to prevent the spread of the conflict, and to draw the parties away from fighting and towards a negotiated settlement.

Further to earlier questions, can the Minister assure us that, as well as dealing with immediate crisis areas, which are the subject of particular attention, the Government, with all their partners both European and transatlantic, are seeking to ensure that all the other areas of the former Yugoslavia are subject to the same level of diplomatic interest so that, if there can be resolution in Bosnia, there can soon be a clear resolution in the whole of the former Yugoslavia for all time?

I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing our best to assist the peace process, not only in Bosnia, but throughout the former Yugoslavia. I visited Macedonia, Kosovo and Bosnia only two weeks ago, so I very much hope that we shall be able to make progress. Of course, the Bosnian question is critical to the future of the whole of the former Yugoslavia and we must concentrate on solving that appalling problem.

Bosnia

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Bosnia. [36870]

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, just as 50 years ago, Nazi war criminals were brought before a tribunal and properly judged, so today there should be no hiding place for those who have initiated war crimes, be it the policy of mass rapes, of murder or of frank genocide? Can he reassure the House that the Government are giving resources and support to the war crimes tribunal and that, however senior within their regimes those people may be, justice will be done?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of individuals have appeared and are appearing before such tribunals. Warrants have been issued against Mr. Karadzic and General Mladic, which shows that even those at the most senior level in the Bosnian Serb hierarchy are subject to the laws to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Know-How Funds

19.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new proposals he has to extend the scope of the know-how funds in the Baltic states and Georgia. [36872]

The know-how fund will continue to provide rapid and flexible assistance to the reform process in the Baltic states. During the visit of Mr. Shevardnadze, the President of Georgia, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the doubling of know-how fund assistance to his country—to US$2 million.

Is the Secretary of State impressed by the lessons from the Baltic states on the effect of the devolution of power to the state of Latvia, which has a smaller population than Scotland, and Estonia, which has a smaller population than Wales? Having learnt that lesson, will he note the great value of the know-how fund in precisely targeting projects there and providing pump-priming to them? Will he continue with the very fine work initiated in Georgia, which is more at peace than it has been for many years, to ensure that country the same benefits from the know-how fund?

The hon. Gentleman would be slightly unwise to describe Latvia's new status as being the result of a policy of devolution. That is not how most people would describe what happened to the old Soviet Union. The know-how fund is a most valuable way to assist reform in those countries. I believe that it has been very warmly welcomed.

Indo-British Partnership

20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department is doing to maintain the impetus of the Indo-British partnership. [36873]

We are actively involved in ensuring that the impetus of the Indo-British partnership is maintained through a targeted series of trade missions and ministerial exchanges. In the first half of this year alone, United Kingdom exports to India have increased by 20 per cent—that is on top of 20 per cent. last year—and UK investment approvals by almost 50 per cent.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that our growing commercial links with India will be further boosted by the recent cut in Export Credits Guarantee Department rates and that our relationship with India on so many levels has never been so excellent?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Indo-British partnership was established by the two Prime Ministers in January 1993, few would have thought that it the past two and a half years would have such a glowing history. Total bilateral trade is up by nearly 50 per cent. in those two years. UK exports to India now stand at £1.3 billion. Imports are up 18 per cent. and I mentioned our record on exports.

UK investment in India has increased tenfold from 1992 to 1994 but my hon. Friend is also right that to say that, at many different levels, we have an excellent relationship with India; long may that continue.

Bill Presented

Disabled Persons Civil Rights Commission

Ms Liz Lynne, supported by Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. David Chidgey, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. Don Foster, Mr. Charles Kennedy and Mrs. Diana Maddock, presented a Bill to establish a Human Rights Commission with comprehensive responsibility for enforcing, monitoring and providing advice on the civil rights of disabled people to ensure equal access to transport, education, employment, goods and services and public life: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 November, and to be printed. [Bill 180.]

Trade Union Employment Rights

3.30 pm

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give effect to the employment rights and relationships between the social partners as provided for in the European Social Chapter; and for connected purposes.

The essence of my Bill is to amend the law so that the much vaunted and heralded so-called opt-outs obtained by the Prime Minister no longer form part of our law. The social chapter of the Maastricht treaty and the earlier European social charter of 1989 are often confused. Of course, exaggerated and inflated claims are also made about them, especially by Conservative Members.

There is one subject on which I agree with Conservative Members who have criticised the Prime Minister in relation to the Maastricht treaty. They have realised that his much-acclaimed triumph in obtaining opt-outs from the social chapter are not worth the paper they are written on—in the long term. They are a sham, because, inexorably, there will be improvements in place of work conditions and employment practices for workers right across Europe.

Those improvements will be obtained, first, through the normal collective bargaining process between employers and trade unions. Secondly, there are multinational employers who think big and who wish to extend good employment practices to all their workers right across Europe. They are confident about their management style, and they believe in motivating their work forces and treating them as mature, informed and committed. Such employers, such as United Biscuits, will have no hesitation in enacting and creating works councils.

Thirdly, the Prime Minister's opt-outs have been diminished in value by judicial decisions; not so much by the European Court of Justice, whose decisions are rare though they are given much publicity, as by our domestic court and tribunal structure. For instance, in an important judgment, the House of Lords pointed out that the Government were wrong, and that they did have obligations to part-time workers, thereby extending the rights of such workers.

Sooner or later, the Government will lose in the courts on the question of the working time directive, which, quite reasonably, seeks to limit the average working week to 48 hours and the average working day to 13 hours or eight hours for night work. Most importantly, it will for the first time, if enacted—I think it will be enacted through court decisions—give workers a legal entitlement to at least four weeks paid annual leave, something which other workers throughout the European Union have but which is denied to workers in the United Kingdom.

The good news is that a Labour Government are on the way. Of course, that Labour Government will have no hesitation in abrogating the opt-out provisions of the social chapter, and they will also seek to implement the. spirit of the social charter of 1989. The bad news is that there are still 14 or 15 months to go.

For many workers, time is not on their side. Between now and the advent of a Labour Government, hundreds—if not thousands—of workers will have been disadvantaged in relation to comparable workers with comparable skills in similar industries elsewhere in Europe. Most workers in the United Kingdom will not have the time or the resources to seek remedies through tribunals or courts.

I believe that, in the interests of everyone involved, and of the United Kingdom as a whole, we should now lift the constraints on so-called opt-outs, and begin to talk positively—here and in the Council of Ministers—about rights and opportunities relating to workplaces and careers. We should do all we can to demonstrate a change of attitudes to employment rights here in the United Kingdom.

In any event, much of the protocol in the Maastricht treaty requires unanimity—including the provisions relating to social security, protection of workers, including those whose employment is terminated, representation and collective defence of workers, and the conditions of third-country nationals residing in the European Union. In that regard, the opt-outs are demonstrably meaningless.

Important measures are currently being enacted elsewhere in the European Union, such as the directive on works councils, which provide for a civilised, democratic dialogue between employer and work force. Over the coming months or years, British workers will be excluded from the benefits and security that these provide, and from the provisions of other directives, such as the directive on part-time workers. That directive is still greatly needed, despite the House of Lords judgment, because so many people are being exploited by "zero hour" contracts and other disadvantages merely because they work part time.

One directive that is coming up is described, rather cumbersomely, as

"the reconciliation of work and family".

It is designed to promote equal opportunities and flexible working models to reflect the changes in society. It incorporates provisions relating to parental leave, job security and employment practices, along with an end to the "zero hour" contracts.

The Government have made a shameful attempt to seek derogation until the year 2000, instead of implementing the directive providing protection for young people in June 1996 along with the rest of Europe. That directive would restrict the working hours of children under the age of 15 who are undergoing training or work experience, to eight hours a day or 40 hours a week. Employment would be restricted to two hours on school days, 12 hours a week in term time and 35 hours a week during school holidays.

In this day and age, we should embrace such provisions rather than resisting them. It does no credit to the United Kingdom that the Government still pretend that they can resist the inevitable, and it does nothing to help workers who are currently disadvantaged. It is time that we abandoned the sham nonsense of the opt-outs, and started playing our full part with our social partners in trying to build a fair and equitable Europe based on employment rights that allow people to develop their skills to the fullest extent and enjoy their lives to the full.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Kevin Macnamara, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Terry Lewis, Mr. Bill Etherington, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Ken Purchase, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Bill Olner.

Trade Union Employment Rights

Mr. Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to give effect to the employment rights and relationships between the social partners as provided for in the European Social Chapter; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 November, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

Opposition Day

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]

National Lottery

I have to inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

3.29 pm

I beg to move,

That this House expresses its concern at recent suggestions that current Government spending on the arts be met by Lottery funds, and reaffirms its wish that funds raised for good causes from the National Lottery should be used for purposes additional to, and not in substitution for, items set out in the Government's existing expenditure plans; believes that when the current contract for the operation of the National Lottery comes to an end, the new Section 5 Licence should be on a not-for-profit basis; proposes that a Lottery Consumers Council should be established to oversee the work of the Lottery regulator; deplores the delay in establishing the National Lottery Charities Board; insists that the funds raised for good causes should fairly benefit every part of the country and every community; and calls for reform of the distribution mechanisms for Lottery funds in order to ensure that this is achieved.

The national lottery was established by Act of Parliament in 1993, and began operating about one year ago. Its establishment met with widespread, but not universal, approval. It has quickly become very successful at raising funds and making huge profits for the operator. Camelot has a licence to print tickets, and another to print money.

The money for distribution is an important addition to capital available for the arts, heritage, sport, charities and, of course, the millennium fund. The lottery and the method of distribution of the proceeds have also quickly become hugely controversial, for several predictable and predicted reasons—perhaps none more so than the payments of huge sums of money to a family for papers that many people felt belonged to the state in the first place.

What has gone wrong? Quite a lot, and mainly because of Government stubbornness during consideration of the National Lottery etc. Bill, and Government inaction since. The present Secretary of State, to her credit, apparently recognises at least some of the failings and problems, and has the opportunity to make some changes. She can certainly have our support if she agrees to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned profits. Does he accept that the lottery organisers, Camelot, had to take all the commercial risk? That is something that the Labour party simply does not understand. It does not understand the concept that a company must take risks, and is entitled to the profits if it is prepared to take those risks.

A rather over-laboured Conservative central office argument, I fear. There is no risk to Camelot. It is a one-way bet in a one-horse race with a national private enterprise monopoly, with a sweetheart deal with the BBC that, if it had been ITV, would have cost it tens of millions of pounds. I fail to see where the hon. Gentleman's argument stands.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Littlewoods Pools has made very successful profits on 2 per cent. of turnover in the many years that it has been in existence? The Government gave Camelot 5 per cent. of the turnover with no competition, exactly as my right hon. Friend says, and it has made an unbelievable profit.

What is more, it has been given tremendous advantages over the pools industry into the bargain.

The failures are too much profit-taking by Camelot; threats of Treasury appropriation of the proceeds of the lottery; damage to the fund-raising of many charities; confusion between capital and revenue implications of funding; required matching funding conditions that are too onerous, or simply not available to too many people who seek to benefit; the failure—so far, at least—for there to be any fairness in regional distribution; bureaucracy and inefficiency in the system itself; and no public voice or oversight or scrutiny of the process. I shall discuss those issues.

No one—with the possible exception of Camelot staff privately among themselves—envisaged or predicted that such excessive profits would go to the operator. Those profits are said to be about £1 million per week and increasing. The lottery is a national monopoly run by private enterprise. The Government gave a seven-year contract with no breaks for reconsideration, but the regulator apparently has the powers to act to end those excessive profits.

Part I, section 4 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 places overriding duties on the Secretary of State and on the regulator. Section 4(2) says:

"the Secretary of State and the Director General shall each in exercising those functions do his best"—

[Interruption.] I am quoting from the 1993 Act. If the Secretary of State will forgive me, that is what it says. It continues:

"to secure that the net proceeds of the National Lottery are as great as possible."

That is an overriding duty on the Secretary of State. Part I, section 6, of the Act gives the director general powers to vary any condition of a licence. So between them, the right hon. Lady and the director general can act on the problem now. Part I, section 11, gives the Secretary of State powers to issue a direction to the director general to this effect.

We know at the outset of the debate that, if the Government and the right hon. Lady want to take action to deal with excess profit-taking by Camelot, they can. The right hon. Lady has the power, and the option is available to her. What we on this side of the House want to know, and what the people of this country want to know, is whether she will use those powers to maximise the amount available for distribution to good causes.

The right hon. Lady inherited an unsatisfactory situation, but she can act now—or, let us say, at the end of the financial year—to correct the situation.

rose—

I will give way in a moment.

I urge the right hon. Lady to do so—the question is, will she? I will be happy to give way to her first if she will answer that question. Well, Madam Speaker, that is the first question to be ducked. I will give way to her hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who may have more courage.

If the Labour party wins the next election, will the main thrust of its policy be to make the lottery less successful by limiting prizes, clobbering Camelot and interfering with the scratch cards? Is not the Labour party's problem that the national lottery is a great success?

The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening when I started my speech. I said that the lottery was a success, and added that it had widespread, but not universal, support. His questions were a complete misinterpretation of what I have said and what I am about to say. The hon. Gentleman—like his right hon. and hon. Friends—never seems to learn.

The experiences of the public being exploited as consumers of water, gas and electricity are being repeated by the lottery, and that is not what people want. People want to play the lottery for fun and enjoyment—I do so myself—and their first objective is to win. But they also hope and expect that the majority of what is left after the prizes are taken goes to good causes. That is the public's feeling on this issue, and they do not support the level of profits that are being made in the present monopoly.

The right hon. Gentleman complained about the regional distribution to charities as a result of the lottery. Bearing in mind that the north-west region is second only to Yorkshire in terms of the amount received, how would he redistribute the money? What would his constituents think about the right hon. Gentleman recommending a redistribution away from their area?

The first weakness in the hon. Gentleman's argument is that my constituency is in the northern region and not the north-west, but we will set that little error aside. The hon. Gentleman is simply talking about the distribution of charity funding, and not the overall distribution of funds, so he is wrong on both counts.

The public strongly support the argument that much more of the money that is being taken as profit should go to good causes. They have a flutter to try to win, but they believe that their losses will help the good causes that they support. They do not believe that the creation of vast profits and huge salaries and bonuses for Camelot should be any part of the lottery.

The case for a not-for-profit operation, as our motion today sets out, is very powerful. The existing contract must be honoured—there is no doubt about that—but Labour in office will ensure that, when a new contract is due, it must be on a not-for-profit basis, thus releasing many more millions of pounds for the arts, sport, heritage and charities alike.

Does my hon. Friend agree that charities distribution has overlooked a number of good causes? I refer particularly to the hospice movement. Will my colleague impress upon the Secretary of State that that is a good and a worthy cause that should receive prime consideration?

My hon. Friend has made his point very well, and I hope that the Secretary of State and those who are responsible for charities funding will take his point on board.

The right hon.Gentleman's argument assumes that a non-profit-making organisation would run the national lottery as well as Camelot does. Will he acknowledge that the national lottery is the most effective lottery in the world? It is run more efficiently than any other lottery, and its administrative costs are one third that of other lotteries. The hon. Gentleman cannot guarantee that a non-profit-making organisation would do anything like as well for good causes.

I am prepared to make a concession to the hon. Lady, who is a constituency neighbour. She is correct to say that nothing can be guaranteed in such matters; there were no guarantees about the existing system, either. Camelot, as it presently exists or through some management buy-out, will be perfectly entitled to bid for the new contract when it becomes available. If it were successful, why would a new regime run the lottery less efficiently?

I now turn to the additionality argument, and we must put some more important questions to the right hon. Lady in that regard. From the outset, ministerial promises came thick and fast in order to reassure everyone that lottery funding would be additional to Government departmental spending programmes. That clear, essential commitment increased support for lottery legislation in the House and in another place.

When unveiling his national lottery plans on 17 December 1992, the then Secretary of State for National Heritage said:

"The national lottery will be an additional source of money for schemes that might otherwise never be realised. This money will not substitute for other Government spending"

Speaking at an English Heritage conference on 16 September 1994, the Prime Minister said:

"On the Government side"—

then he paused and continued—

"Treasury please note—we will make no case by case reductions on conventional public spending programmes to take account of awards from the lottery. The money raised by the lottery will not replace existing Government spending".

However, the Prime Minister's colleagues in the Treasury soon had other ideas. The Chief Secretary has already tried to raid the lottery funds, and we read that the Secretary of State is locked in a struggle with him. She made sure that we knew about that by leaking her letter to him all over the place; not only did we know, but he knew we knew.

In her letter, the Secretary of State said that this could not be countenanced, because

"it would be the clearest possible broken promise".

That has never stopped the Government in the past, so I do not think that that is much of a guarantee. I ask the right hon. Lady to give the House an unequivocal assurance today that she has won that battle and that the lottery funds will always be additional expenditure. Can she give the House that assurance now? I am again willing to give way if she is willing to give that assurance.

Perhaps I can put it another way: will the Secretary of State confirm that her departmental budget is safe, and that there will be no cuts in her spending programmes in next month's Budget? Can the Secretary of State give us that assurance? I am pretty sure she cannot.

Perhaps the Secretary of State can answer an easier question. I refer her to a statement by her hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), who is chair of the Tory Back-Bench finance committee. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Chairman."] Chairperson.

Speaking to Conservative students at York university on Friday 20 October about the right hon. Lady's budget and the Heritage Fund, the hon. Member for Bridlington said—I wonder whether he had the courtesy to tell the right hon. Lady—

"We should cut £200 million a year off the heritage budget, which is now over £1 billion. The arts are getting enormous sums of money from the National Lottery and therefore the heritage budget should no longer be a sacred cow."

Does the right hon. Lady agree with her hon. Friend?

For the avoidance of doubt, I shall intervene, because it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman is struggling about what to say, and filling his speech with gaps. It may have been different when the right hon. Gentleman was shadowing the Deputy Prime Minister, but I intend to make my own speech in my own time, and I do not intend to help the right hon. Gentleman get through the time that has been allocated to him by filling up the gaps in his speech.

I am quite entertained by the right hon. Lady's intervention, because she is just like the Deputy Prime Minister. He never answered any questions, either.

Apparently there are great differences among Cabinet Ministers and between the right hon. Lady and her influential—we have to assume that the hon. Member for Bridlington is influential—Back-Bench colleagues. We shall wait to see who emerges victorious in this continuing battle about Government expenditure.

Apparently, there are also differences between the Secretary of State and her colleague at the Welsh Office about the status of lottery grants in Wales and awards to organisations in the Principality. The Secretary of State for Wales seems to have deemed it public expenditure. I wonder whether she agrees with her colleague on that.

Who is really in control of the decisions? The House was told by the Government, especially during the debate on Manchester's Olympic games bid, that it would certainly not be up to any Minister to decide whether Manchester's bid should receive money. However, the Prime Minister announced that £100 million from lottery proceeds would be available to fund a British academy of sport. We are not against such an academy, but who took the decision? Was it the Prime Minister or the Sports Council? It would be interesting to see the minutes of the discussion before that decision was made.

There is a real question to be answered, if any are ever to be answered. It is: are Ministers manipulating the lottery proceedings behind the scenes for political ends? There is a certain accumulation of evidence to that effect. Total independence in connection with the use of lottery proceeds was guaranteed to the House, but now the waters are being well and truly muddied. It is not as if the Treasury is not already doing well enough out of the lottery, because it is a substantial beneficiary. It took £410.7 million from the lottery between November 1994 and September of this year.

Before the lottery was established, there was wide debate about its impact on the revenue-raising activities of charities and on other businesses such as the football pools. There were clear and insistent warnings to the Government, but Ministers brushed them aside, and they still do.

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations has carried out its own studies, and it concludes that very serious damage to voluntary sector incomes is apparent. That organisation estimates losses of about £330 million in the first year as a result of the impact of the lottery. I shall shortly turn to grants to charities, but whatever the total at the end of this first year, they will in no way match the shortfall that is being experienced by charities.

The voluntary sector study confirms that the public are confused about the true beneficiaries of the lottery. It confirms that fewer people are donating, and that losses among fund-raising organisations are widespread.

The National Lottery etc. Act received Royal Assent in November 1993. The impact on charities was predicted then, yet only last week, after constant pressure from the Opposition Benches as well as from charities, was the Home Office moved to decide to investigate the position—too late really to repair or prevent the damage that has already taken place. Ministers in the Home Office have been negligent and dilatory, and the charities have had to pay the price.

This matter was debated at some length in the House during consideration of the Bill. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying yesterday on the radio that the Government had not listened to what had been said by the voluntary sector during that debate, because his hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), in explaining why Labour supported the Bill's Third Reading, said:

"Ministers did listen to the genuine concerns expressed. To their eternal credit, they promised to reflect on the many points that we had to put to them. That promise was kept."—[Official Report, 28 April 1993; Vol. 223, c. 1114.]

Who is right: the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde or the right hon. Gentleman?

Ministers may have listened but, in relation to this point, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they took no action to monitor the impact on charities' fund-raising until his ministerial colleague announced a decision last Friday. The Act received Royal Assent in 1993. Do not tell me that they listened on that point: if the hon. Gentleman says that, he has not got a leg to stand on.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund has announced a 17 per cent. increase in charity given to it over the past year, and the British Red Cross a 25 per cent. increase, and this is the first year of the lottery?

I am pleased for those charities, but has the hon. Gentleman heard about what happened to Tenovus, which lost £1.5 million in the first year—income that was wiped out by the introduction of the lottery? Of course some have done better, but there is no doubt that a much larger number have done and are doing much worse.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I want to support his argument, not least because, just a few days ago, the Royal National Institute for the Blind announced that it had lost £500,000 since the inception of the lottery.

To close the gate once the horse has bolted is not good enough. Those of us who were on the Standing Committee that considered the National Lottery etc. Bill argued persistently throughout that money would be lost to charities as a result of the lottery, not least because of the experience elsewhere in countries such as Ireland, where 16 leading charities had written to the Taoiseach pointing out that their donations had been massively reduced since the lottery was established there, so they knew in advance what the impact would be.

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I am pleased to be able to agree with him on that point.

As the honorary president of a number of voluntary organisations in my constituency, I know from local experience the damage that has been done to the fund-raising activities of charities and voluntary bodies.

The National Lottery Charities Board is also controlled by the Home Secretary. Yesterday, I read in the Evening Standard that the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for National Heritage is locked in a battle to wrest control from him. Why does she not just tell him that it is an operational matter? He would be bound to give it up then.

Ho, ho, that was a good one.

Pretty good.

The right hon. Lady described people in charities and voluntary organisations as "whingers", but they have a legitimate right to criticise the Government over the lottery's impact and the long delay in the announcement by the National Lottery Charities Board. Of all the funding bodies, it was the last to make any grants in one of the most crucial sectors and one of the sectors most affected by the lottery. It has been submerged in bureaucratic obfuscation and delay, and still, out of something in excess of £230 million available to it, only £40 million has so far been allocated. The right hon. Lady, to quote her, may be "bored with the whingeing", but the millions of people active in the voluntary sector are justifiably angry with the Government.

A Labour Government will seek a partnership with the voluntary sector on these matters. Those involved have enormous energy and initiative, and deliver excellent services and support to millions of people. They and the volunteers have been treated shabbily by the Government, who, according to successive ministerial statements, do not appear to recognise that, although voluntary bodies want to work in partnership with the Government, they fiercely defend their independence and wish to maintain it. The Labour Government will guarantee that they can do so.

The charities board announced grants this week of £40 million, and it has promised another £120 million by the end of the year. However, it must have more than £240 million available to it by now. Why is the money being held back? Why is the board being so dilatory, especially when the charities have been so disadvantaged? It needs a shake-up.

The board deserves some credit for working hard on an equitable regional distribution, and for ignoring the xenophobic ravings of the Tory right about who should be the beneficiaries of the grants.

In fairness to the people involved in the charity distribution, will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Sports Council and the Arts Council have had many years of experience in distributing funds around the country, and that the charities board was something new? The hon. Gentleman would have been the first to complain had not serious consideration been given to establishing it properly and doing it well. The hon. Gentleman is so carried away with wanting to denigrate a great success that his normal rationality has escaped him.

I rarely get carried away in this Chamber even after interventions from the hon. Gentleman. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the board began from a standing start, unlike some of the other funding bodies.

I am not aiming my anger at individuals. What has the Home Secretary been doing all this time? He has ministerial responsibility. The Secretary of State for National Heritage is innocent of this charge, because she does not have any power, although I rather suspect that she wishes she did. On the whole, these decisions would probably be safer in her hands than in the hands of the Home Secretary. All sorts of things seem to slip through his fingers.

The system—I am talking about the system as a whole, not the charities board—seems much too time-consuming, bureaucratic and inefficient. That may explain the massive disparities between allocations in different parts of Britain.

Some counties—Surrey and Wiltshire, for example—have so far been given the equivalent of about £50 per head. In Cumbria, where my constituency is located, the figure is 90p per head. That is a colossal disparity, and is unsustainable. It is those disparities which are making people justifiably angry. Before Monday's announcement, the northern region had received £2.5 million in total, whereas the London region had received £141 million—almost 60 times as much.

Will the hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating my constituents on receiving £280,000 this year for a children's centre in Hebden Bridge? The hon. Gentleman's motion says that the funds should be "raised for good causes", and not for specific things. Does the hon. Gentleman think that all this bureaucracy would be washed away were the Home Secretary, either this one or a subsequent one, to chair the board? I think not.

I certainly would not want this Home Secretary to chair any organisation with which I had to deal.

I am making a different point. Part of the bureaucracy occurs when people want to make applications for grants. As the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said on the radio the other day, people cannot find their way through the paper chase, and they are put off. They do not have the resources to cope, and they are disadvantaged as a result. I am, of course, delighted for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's constituents. Pica village hall in my constituency received about £9,000, and I am pleased about that, too. I was talking about disparities on a per capita basis as well as on a regional basis.

The charities board, alone of the distributing bodies, makes a distinction between grants made to national institutions and those that are made to local or regional institutions. Does my right hon. Friend consider that it would be advisable if the other distributing bodies were to take that approach?

For example, does anyone believe that the money made available for the Churchill papers was to the benefit of the people of Cambridge, any more than the Royal opera house moneys were specifically for the benefit of the people of London? Does my right hon. Friend accept that London has received £1.5 million of the £40 million of charitable moneys—less than 4 per cent? That is out of keeping with the level of social need and depravation within London.

I agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the Churchill papers. I do not suppose that the people of Cambridge have benefited from that grant in any way.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree with me that the people of Cambridge did not feel that they were beneficiaries following the £13 million that was paid for the Churchill papers. Does he accept that there is outrage in my constituency? Most of my constituents feel that the real beneficiary is the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill).

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman must concede that I have been generous in my response to those wishing to intervene. I know that many Members wish to contribute to the debate.

Disparities are to be expected in the first year of operation. I support, and as often as I can enjoy, important international institutions in London. They are an asset to the nation as a whole. They deserve support for the excellence of their work. They attract visitors to Britain. They are usually beneficial to our economic and social well-being. I wish them well. It is essential, however, to have some fairness and regional balance in the allocation of funds over time to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions of England.

Many of our fellow citizens do not, and never will, have ready access to London institutions. That must be borne very much in mind. It must also be understood that there are many excellent theatres, orchestras and companies in the regions, as well as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, that are equally as deserving of support as the London institutions. Their audiences and patrons are entitled to expect it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. I apologise to the hon. Lady, but I must move on.

The lottery was given a substantial competitive disadvantage over the pools from the outset. There has been a consequent loss of income to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and to the Football Trust. Grants to rugby league, rugby union and county cricket—not only to soccer—are thus affected. None of these areas of expenditure is eligible for lottery funding.

Local authorities, too, have difficulties in promoting projects because of lack of matching funding. That is especially true of some of the hard-pressed inner urban areas, where problems of unemployment, homelessness and social neglect are at their very worst.

Funding for sports facilities, music and other education and community projects is desperately needed in the inner cities, but, as I have said, matching funding is not available. The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage said:

"I heard someone mention the selling of school playing fields…We also intend to allow schools, with their local communities, to buy back land to make even more sports facilities available for young people."—[Official Report, 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 5.]

That is fine, but where is that land?

Why were the playing fields sold in the first place? Perhaps the Minister would like to explain. If they can be bought back, what will happen to the supermarkets, car parks and houses now standing on them? They were sold for development and for profit. It is no good offering capital funding if no account is taken of the inevitable associated recurring revenue spending which necessarily follows. I urge the right hon. Lady to consider this issue. I know that many of the people in the funding organisations are giving her the same simple important advice.

There is one further point on capital grants. Why does the millennium fund have a £100,000 minimum grant? That requires the same amount of matching funding to be provided. In other words, nothing costing less than £200,000 can be proposed. At a stroke, hamlets, villages and small towns in rural areas are seriously disadvantaged as a result. They are simply not in that league of matching funding, and are therefore excluded from being beneficiaries. The right hon. Lady sits in the chair and can have that changed. I believe that she should do so as a matter of urgency.

To resolve some of the problems that I have described, the distributing bodies should be directed to identify gaps in geographical and subject provision. The boards must surely have some strategic sense of direction and purpose. Regional and local bodies, societies and groups should be encouraged to work together to find solutions where they cannot find them individually, and there should be some flexibility if they do in the requirements for matching funding to allow projects to proceed. The medical research charities should be included as potential beneficiaries, but I believe that some care is needed.

Of the 87 members of the Association of Medical Research Charities, 74 are fund-raising; the rest are endowed. Between them, they have a turnover of some £360 million, of which £200 million comes from fund-raising. Only five of them raise more than £10 million, and all but 13 are small charities spending less than £500,000. Their umbrella organisation has pointed out that some of them, as the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) reminded us, have improved their position, while others have seen their position deteriorate.

Big charities can afford to meet the challenge of the lottery by reorganising their fund-raising. The smaller ones have found it much harder to adapt. However, it is not an easy matter to make informed, quality judgments about scientific and medical research programmes. It may be necessary to set up either a separate body, or at least a separate mechanism, to deal with these important but complex issues. I should like to hear what the right hon. Lady has to say on that important point, and I am sure that the House would, too.

Many people feel excluded by the existing procedures from benefiting from the lottery, either as individuals or in their communities. They believe that they and their communities are unlikely to benefit in future, even though many of them buy tickets regularly. There is a case for much greater public involvement and scrutiny of what is happening. Not everyone, however, can afford to pay £400 to go to a seminar to learn what is going on with the national lottery proceeds and how to make applications for them.

We propose a lottery consumer council to involve people—[Interruption.] As this is the Government who have given more power and expenditure control to quangos than any Government in living memory, a period of silence from Conservative Members would be sensible.

We propose the council simply because people want to be involved. We propose that it should have a variety of duties, including scrutiny, and giving information and guidance to the public about what is going on. It would advise in the public interest, and it would work alongside the director general, but with different priorities and duties. The right hon. Lady should not underestimate the growing public feelings on these issues, expressed strongly on the social implications of gambling by the Churches as recently as yesterday.

I have one further proposal to make.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I am not giving way.

In this country, we have been inclined over many years and under successive Governments—I do not hold the Government or the Secretary of State responsible for any of it—to allow talented young people to struggle on alone, or with parental support if it is available. That applies to athletes, artists, musicians, scientists, inventors and designers, and it is well established as one of the gaps in our approach, whether in education, further or higher education, or funding.

We should consider the establishment of a talent fund from lottery proceeds to address that failing of the present system. I hope that the Secretary of State has already had that proposal put to her. It is worth serious consideration, and I urge her to give it some thought.

Our motion addresses the need to improve the way that the lottery is run and to improve the distribution of proceeds from it. We on the Opposition Benches support the lottery; we want to develop and build on its success. Our proposals would reinforce the best aspects of the lottery, and make it more open, fair and accountable. The Secretary of State has the necessary powers to make most of those changes now. She should do so.

4.20 pm

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

'welcomes the huge success of the National Lottery and the enormous sums of extra money it is raising for the Good Causes Fund to go to the arts, sport, the heritage, the caring charities and the celebration of the Millennium; believes that the operator, whose selection was endorsed by the NAO, is running the lottery efficiently and cost-effectively; congratulates the distributing bodies on making an excellent start in spreading the benefits of the Lottery throughout the land; and calls upon the Opposition to recognise this success and the opportunity it brings to improve the quality of life.'.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate about the national lottery, to answer a number of questions and to put the record straight. A great deal of misleading nonsense has been spoken, fuelled, I am afraid, by Labour Members. The facts are clear: the national lottery has been a tremendous success; it has been a tremendous success for the millions of people who play and enjoy it each week; it is a success for the good causes which are benefiting so handsomely from its proceeds; and it is a success which the Labour party's approach would ruin by denying an unprecedented opportunity for thousands of good causes to realise their dreams year after year.

The lottery has been with us for less than a year. As I speak, I am very mindful of the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who steered the Bill through all its stages with great care, precision, attention to detail and a great degree of consultation. Having waited more than 150 years since the previous lottery in this country, the lottery has become a national pastime in a matter of months. The success has been built on the sound foundations which we put in place in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. The structure was agreed by the House after a great deal of careful debate and preparation.

Let me explain why the Labour party would destroy that progress. In the pursuit of ideology, about which I shall say much more in a moment, the Labour party would harm tens of thousands of retailers, thwart popular ambition and rob good causes of hundreds of millions of pounds. It would lose friends, lose votes and lose respect. I predict that its policy will change within a year—although I doubt whether even Mystic Meg would be brave enough to predict how many times it will change in that year.

Before moving on, I welcome the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to his post. He is an experienced member of the House and I look forward to many a joust with him. As I said, the right hon. Gentleman is experienced; he knows the ups and downs of politics as well as most. I commiserate with him over the shadow Cabinet elections. Government Members know that Opposition Members cannot safely be let out to vote and put crosses by the right names.

I am really charmed by the right hon. Lady's felicity. I have given a lot of thought to lotteries over the past seven days, as she can imagine. But as a lifelong supporter of the Labour party and Newcastle United, I am well used to dealing with both triumph and disaster. It is just that the disasters have been a bit too frequent lately.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's remarks.

As for the operation of the lottery—

The Secretary of State has just said that Opposition Members cannot be relied upon to put crosses at the side of names. Only a few months ago, Tory Members of Parliament trooped up to the Committee Room upstairs. Ten of them went in and voted twice. Eight of them went in and did not vote at all. One of them, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), did not go in because there were no cameras there. Two of them finished up voting for my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and one of them has joined us already. Who is the other one?

I suspect that it is something to do with the nature of the debate that there is such a spirit of enjoyment and levity in the Chamber today. I say that only as a statement of what the national lottery has done to our national life.

About 30 million people play the lottery every week—three out of four households. Few pastimes have attracted this level of participation. Some people have complained that we are encouraging people to spend money that they cannot afford on the lottery.

The Secretary of State talks about the number of people who participate in the national lottery. Does she agree with me, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House who signed early-day motion 1268, which states that the sale of national lottery instants is inappropriate for normal retail outlets? In view of the decision of the Director General of the National Lottery that no licence should be granted for national lottery games that could encourage excessive gambling, will she consider the case for withdrawing the sale of instants to such ordinary retail outlets and confining them to establishments licensed for gambling? This is a serious point.

It is a serious point, but the hon. Lady will understand that I hope to deal with it in a proper place later in my speech. I shall merely say in passing that the effect of her proposal would be to stop the British Legion introducing its new initiative, which is likely to result in great benefit for an excellent cause.

Let us go back to the previous scare story, namely, that people would spend more than they could afford on the lottery. Last week, the family expenditure survey showed that the average household spent £2.10 a week on its regular flutter on the lottery. That is not a large price to pay for the chance for people to dream about what they would do if they won the jackpot. As for what the right hon. Member for Copeland implied, the survey also showed that the better-off play more and the worse-off play less.

It is the other way around.

The evidence from the family expenditure survey—a very reputable survey—last week was precisely that the better-off play more and the worse-off pay less. Many hon. Members play. There was some debate—

My right hon. Friend will have read the reports this morning of the Church of England's condemnation of the lottery. Would she find it more convincing if the Church of England followed the example of the Church of Scotland and abjured not only the lottery but claiming from the lottery? I believe that the Church of England has put in 267 applications for some £19 million, to follow the £1 million that it has already received. Does she agree that it must find itself in a considerable dilemma, as the Bishop of Liverpool has said?

My hon. Friend is right. The Church and its organisations are likely to be major beneficiaries from the lottery, not only in terms of restoration of magnificent buildings but because the various branches of the Church are often involved in excellent causes to support families or promote sport in deprived areas or in artistic activities. The lottery is a great opportunity for the Church. As two hon. Members have raised that particular point, it is only right for me to deal with it now.

The lottery was set up with extremely careful regulation. We are virtually the last country in the world to have a lottery. It is one of the most successful lotteries in the world. We have learnt lessons from others about regulation. We have established the Office of the National Lottery and appointed the director general, who is charged explicitly with maximising the return for good causes, ensuring propriety and protecting the interests of those who play. In the report published last week, the director general referred to the work that he has undertaken to look for any evidence of excessive gambling behaviour in other countries as a result of the introduction of a lottery. He has not been able to find any evidence that the national lottery has led to excessive gambling. But those who are concerned about that, including the churches, should urgently seek a meeting with the Director General of the National Lottery, who is expressly charged with protecting the interests of the players.

Will my right hon. Friend promise to ignore the sanctimonious claptrap that we have heard from the churches this week and the crescendo of whingeing from Opposition Members? Has not the national lottery been a complete success in Britain, particularly in Scarborough where work on the Alan Ayckbourn theatre would have been delayed had it not been for the £1.5 million from the national lottery? It has made a fantastic theatre available to the people of Scarborough and the many people from all over the world who come to visit us.

My hon. Friend is right. The theatre in Scarborough is one of more than 500 bodies that have received an Arts Council award from the national lottery. There are 54 theatres throughout Britain that have received an award, giving them an opportunity to invest in local arts in a way that they would never have thought possible.

We are one of the last countries to have a national lottery and it is an especially successful one. I hope that I have dealt with the concern about some of the effects on people's behaviour and our commitment to entrust the director general to continue to monitor that, to look into the evidence and to be available to those who wish to discuss it.

There has been a considerable debate about the size of the prizes.

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

I have been permissive in the extreme in allowing interventions and I shall be abused by Opposition Members if I do not make more progress, because many hon. Members with constituency projects—

rose—

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be seeking to catch my eye at a later stage.

You know that I will, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I appreciate your efforts, Madam Deputy Speaker, to maintain an orderly House.

There are those who carp about the prizes. I want the House to know that capping the prizes and cutting the prize fund are the route to an equal distribution of very little. It is big jackpots that are the route to generous distributions of significant sums of money. Evidence here, as around the world, is that a big jackpot increases participation and the sum raised. The whole point about the lottery was to maximise the amount coming through for good causes.

The Opposition cannot live with the fact that the results have so exceeded anyone's expectations at the start. In the weeks when the jackpot has rolled over, between 10 and 20 per cent. more has come through for good causes. That means, for example, that theatres such as the one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) can benefit.

The good causes do benefit, but does my right hon. Friend agree that when people buy a lottery ticket the good causes in which they are interested are themselves and their families?

As ever, and acutely, my hon. Friend has a precise knowledge of human psychology, as befits a former Whip. If people wish to give to charity, they should give to charity. If they play the lottery, for the most part it is for the fun, the promise of a big win and the participation in a great national activity.

Some say—this is almost beyond belief—that huge prizes bring misery to the winners. Now we know that it was misery that led millionaires to give a reported £80,000 to Labour's leader in the battle to run his party. Wealth is not the source of misery for champagne socialists, so why should it be the source of misery for the rest of us?

In fact, the House will be aware that it is rare for one person to win the jackpot; it is generally shared by three or more people. Out of about 280 jackpot wins so far, only 18 have been for more than £5 million, and many such jackpots are shared by syndicates of up to 20 people. How many of those 18 have been made miserable by the experience, we do not know, but we can guess that there are many more people willing to change places with them.

May I confirm what the right hon. Lady just said about the syndicate? My wife did not do the lottery, but she found that all her work mates did and realised that, if they won, she would be the last person left in her department, so she joined the syndicate as well.

I am grateful to hear about the hon. Gentleman's domestic experience. When I review the working of the lottery, I will bear in mind his experiences and those of his wife before deciding on any modifications in the rules or arrangements.

The substance of the Opposition's gripe is their utter loathing of the private sector and outrage that the operator, Camelot, could have the nerve to make a profit out of running the most successful lottery anywhere in the world. The House and the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) might well benefit from hearing about the issues involved in deciding the operator.

In 1991, the Opposition said that they favoured a national lottery for the arts—they did not mention all the other good causes that have benefited. Of course, they wanted an inquiry—that goes without saying for an Opposition policy—to find out how that could be achieved with the lowest possible cost. We have the lottery with the lowest possible cost. That is what the Director General of the National Lottery was charged to do when considering the bids for the licence.

The recent report from the director general states that the Camelot bid

"offered the greatest contribution to the Good Causes … and retained the lowest percentage of turnover to cover its operating costs and profits".

The report continues:

"More would have been kept by The Lottery Foundation … for operating costs and profit than Camelot proposed over the same range of revenue scenarios".

So, in awarding the licence to Camelot, the director general chose the best deal for the good causes from the eight bids to run the lottery.

If that were not enough, the National Audit Office confirmed that the evaluation process was

"comprehensive, consistent, logical and properly controlled"℄

praise indeed from the NAO.

The operator has fully justified that decision. Camelot got the lottery up and running within six months of winning the licence—an achievement for which it should be congratulated. It has raised more than £1,119 million for good causes. Its bid had the lowest retention for operating costs and profits and was the best for good causes, which have benefited to the fullest extent. It is predictable that the Opposition would prefer an operating bid that would cut the cash for good causes but satisfy their ideological hostility to profit and the private sector. That is new Labour.

That is not true. The Secretary of State chose not to listen, or is deliberately ignoring what I said. The reality is that our proposals were seeking, not to reduce the money available for distribution, but to maximise it. Under the Act, the right hon. Lady has an overriding duty to ensure that the money is maximised. Will she allow the excessive profit levels to continue, or will she use her powers to reduce them?

I was going to avoid flatly contradicting the right hon. Gentleman, since it is our first debate and his first day on the subject. The licence will run until the end of its period and it is not within my powers to intervene during that time. The right hon. Gentleman fails to understand. Does he know that, in New Zealand, operating costs are 14.3 per cent., in Denmark they are 14.8 per cent. in Ireland they are 16 per cent., and in Holland they are 25 per cent? He is right—people dislike statistics when they know that they disprove their argument. Funnily enough, when the statistics go the other way the Opposition are only too happy to engage in a debate on the figures. In this case, the operator retains 5 per cent. over the licence period. That is a formidable achievement and no other lottery anywhere in the world has done it.

I ask people in the country more widely to hear the Labour party's loathing of profit and of the private sector. It is exactly like its rage about and wish to meddle with British Telecom and the cable companies. It seems to have no sense of honour or principle of maintaining contracts or of allowing the private sector, if it takes a risk, also to take the benefit that emerges if it delivers the most efficient lottery anywhere in the world.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that Camelot conned Peter Davis? The impression was given that to install 10,000 terminals in newsagents would take two years and that the lottery would not make a profit, or break even, for two years. Those terminals were installed in less than six months. The Government and Peter Davis should have had the technical knowledge to know that 10,000 terminals could be installed in six months and that the lottery would be running at maximum profit from day one. That was a major mistake by Peter Davis and the Government.

I tend to have more confidence in the commendation from the National Audit Office that the selection of the operator received than in even the distinguished judgement of the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that had Camelot not succeeded in getting the terminals into newsagents, the first people to criticise would have been members of the Labour party? Labour would have loved the lottery to fail. It cannot find anything, so it is just carping.

My hon. Friend makes it all the more clear why I must make some headway with my speech. Clearly, interventions from Labour Members are going to take the debate much wider.

rose—

I must make progress.

Let me move on to the next bright new idea from the Labour party—a quango to regulate the quangos. This is a familiar theme: along with a review, a quango. They like all those sort of concepts in the Labour party. It is unclear whether this would just be a kind of Walworth road imprimatur on all that happened through the lottery.

Oflot was charged with protecting the interests of those who play the game. The recent report demonstrated that there have been very few complaints from members of public. If there are any areas in which it can improve its responsiveness to those who play the game, it will no doubt do so. It is not right to compare those who play the lottery with users of water, electricity or gas since evidently, those who do not wish to play the lottery have a simple power at their disposal—to stop playing.

I shall move on to the comments of the right hon. Member for Copeland about additionality. It is the case, as my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South said when he took the Bill through the House and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) has said on frequent other occasions, that lottery money is additional to public expenditure. It is additional to the money that would otherwise be provided for all those good causes. The national lottery money is clearly public money, however, and the good causes fund is managed by my Department, as is well understood.

The distribution of that money is the responsibility of independent bodies, as Parliament agreed. I may not always like the decisions that they make, but they are independent bodies, and my view—I think that the Labour party is quite wrong to meddle in the process—is that we should accept those judgments, difficult though they are.

There have been a number of cases, however, where schemes have had difficulty because there was a Government scheme, which was designed to lever in money from the private sector, and so they were unable to match this public funding with lottery money, which itself is public sector money. The most notable case recently was that of the Wales tourist board. I am pleased to be able to inform the House, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made it clear that in future it will be possible for Wales tourist board projects to be matched with lottery money. That is an example of the pragmatic and practical way in which I believe we should see the lottery unfold. If there are problems in the early months and years I shall not be a bit surprised, but sensible solutions can be found. What is ludicrous is the idea of pulling the system up by its roots, changing all the rules and regulations and going off in a different direction.

Does the Secretary of State accept, despite the runaway success of the national lottery—which has been acknowledged on all sides—that among the losers are the 1,717 people in Glasgow, Cardiff and Liverpool who have lost their employment with the football pools companies? My colleagues on Merseyside are making strong representations about that. The lottery is having a damaging and long-term effect on the pools industry.

In the interests of consumers—if that is what we are to call them—in the gambling market, should not something more than a review be carried out? Should not the regulations be examined to ensure that the widest possible choice is available? The bingo promoters also claim to have been affected—

Order. The hon. Lady knows that interventions should, by their nature, be short. I think that she has had long enough.

The hon. Lady will be aware that a number of concessions were agreed to help the industry to which she refers. We shall continue to examine the issues that have been raised. One of the strengths of the lottery awards, however, is that they are going to many of the sectors—the arts, heritage and sport—in which there are rising employment and new opportunities. Seeing the regeneration of opportunities arising from the lottery is enormously exciting. It gives us an historic opportunity to change the face of the nation for the generations to come.

By enriching the cultural and sporting facilities of our nation and investing in our unrivalled built and natural heritage, we can create a springboard for success and endeavour as we move towards the new millennium. We are committed to that vision. As the lottery continues and more and more funds are distributed, I expect every man, woman and child in the country to have access to cultural and sporting facilities. That has been possible only because of the national lottery.

The Prime Minister's new sports initiative is set to transform opportunities for sports men and women, young and old, across the country. Schoolchildren will have the opportunity to become more involved in the living theatre, and in museums and galleries, thanks to the developments made possible by the lottery.

I endorse what the right hon. Member for Copeland said about talent and the possible establishment of a "talent fund". That is comparable to the initiative that I shall announce on Monday. The Millennium Commission is considering an award scheme enabling us to invest in the next generation as we approach the millennium.

The culmination of such investment will be the millennium festival. I have the honour to chair the Millennium Commission, and have been able to see the way in which we can fund projects that otherwise would not be possible: for instance, the 2,500 miles of cycle track up and down the country, the renaissance of Portsmouth harbour—a £40 million scheme—and the Doncaster earth centre. It is a wonderful opportunity. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), who voted against Third Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill, realised that it would bring Doncaster such a formidable opportunity for regeneration, and an environmental centre that will be known the world over.

Why is the Millennium Commission insisting on only one site for the festival and exhibition? There should be at least three sites—one in Scotland, which has a very different culture and whose people would want to celebrate the millennium differently from Londoners.

Conservative Members believe that we are a united kingdom. We intend to make a celebration of the new millennium possible, and to mark the turn of the century in a single place that will be visited by people from all over the country.

However, by then there will also be the 12 landmark projects funded by the Millennium Commission, and many smaller projects throughout the country. As the plans unfold and we respond to consultation and debate, we shall ensure that the shared national experience at the festival site links in, as I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) would want, with the many other projects throughout the country.

Mention has been made of the National Lottery Charities Board, which made its first award to caring charities this week. It has had an onerous task to reach this time. It was a new organisation, unlike many of the others, and it had a large programme of work. I believe that the announcements that it has made are welcome, but they are only the beginning. The charities board will make two more waves of announcements before Christmas and afterwards there will be further waves.

The right hon. Member for Copeland referred to the medical charities. He knows the obvious reasons why I have always supported their inclusion among groups that may benefit from the national lottery. I am pleased that, once poverty and youth have been considered, health and medical charities are among those to which the charities board intends to give priority in the new year.

The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) mentioned hospices—a cause which he and I share. He will want to know that the Accord hospice in Scotland received £50,000 and St. Anne's hospice in Wales received £280,000 from the charities board.

There has been a great debate about the effect of the lottery on charitable giving. The evidence is mixed, to say the least. I looked up the evidence, such as it was, from Ireland. Independent research commissioned there by the Irish national lottery concluded that the majority of the charitable organisations that were surveyed had increased their gross private fund-raising income in real terms since the launch of the Irish national lottery.

In this country, there are examples—which my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) identified—of groups which have reported very favourable results this year. The last time that I mentioned them, I received letters of the nicest sort from some of them, saying that they preferred me not to mention them by name because it tended to discourage other givers if they were known to be having such a flourishing year.

I dare say that there has been an adverse effect on some groups—the right hon. Member for Copeland mentioned Tenovus—which had a comparable system of fund-raising. However, that does not explain why United Kingdom Charity Lotteries Ltd. has increased fivefold the amount of money that it raises for charities because it is using the interest in scratchcards—as is the British Legion—to join the latest craze in fund-raising. Sometimes we have flag days; sometimes we have coffee mornings; sometimes we have sponsored marathons. Scratchcards appear to be the most popular way of raising money for charities at the moment, and many of those enterprises are extremely successful.

Mention was made of the RNIB. What was not said was that it is its legacies that have decreased by £1 million. I do not think that at this stage the lottery can be blamed for a shortfall in legacies. Similarly, a recent MORI poll, organised by Comic Relief, showed that, of the people questioned, more people said that they had increased the amount that they were giving in donations since the introduction of the lottery than said that they had decreased their giving.

I accept that different groups will refer to different evidence on that matter. I welcome the fact that the Home Office is acting on its long-standing commitment to monitor the effect on charitable giving of the introduction of the lottery.

No one in the House can dispute the fact that the voluntary sector has had an enormous bonus in the past seven months: £1,190 million raised for good causes, the vast majority of which are voluntary organisations and charities of all sorts. It is not only the charities board that benefits disadvantaged or disabled people. Many of the arts groups and sports groups promote sport or art for disabled people.

The Jubilee sailing trust in Hampshire has been awarded more than £4 million to build a sailing ship for physically disabled people. The Quicksilver theatre for children—a touring theatre company—has been awarded more than £48,000 towards the cost of a new van with a chairlift to be used by performers with disabilities. Some £736,000 has been awarded by the Millennium Commission to the exemplary scheme in Northamptonshire for a park particularly designed to be accessible to people with disabilities. The first sign language video library for the deaf in Derby and a new school for the blind in Margate are among any number of awards which will help people with disadvantages and disabilities and which have been made possible because of the success of the lottery.

The items listed, while very welcome, are all one-off sums. Does the Secretary of State agree that the arrangement for applying to the charities board by which it is possible to give revenue sums to organisations should be extended to other bodies to enable those and other facilities to be run as well?

I made it clear in my earlier remarks that the Government and the chairmen of the distributing bodies are taking a long look at the lessons learnt so far. It is only seven months since we began to distribute awards, and to change direction suddenly after so short a space of time and in such a substantial way would seem to me to be folly.

The Arts Council has made 54 awards to theatres, and I have noticed that a number of theatres up and down the country have suddenly realised that, if they get their applications in, they too can have an opportunity to improve their facilities. Often there is a great need for capital investment in many of our arts, sports and museum facilities throughout the country.

That brings me to the other issue raised during this debate—the question of regional balance. There have been some magnificent flagship projects, and I appreciate the remarks of the right hon. Member for Copeland about the understandable need for projects in London to receive support. London is the nation's capital, and many of our greatest artistic organisations have their headquarters here. Those organisations are providing a service for the nation, and are often providing an international service as well. Many of our flagship institutions are themselves legacies of previous lotteries, including the British museum—the most popular museum in the world. The former Westminster bridge was one of many monuments to be funded by a lottery. We want a tapestry of provision up and down the country so that constituency after constituency has its own projects which people know have been made possible only by the lottery.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the north-west is not receiving nearly as much money as London? Does she agree with the remark of the chairman of the Arts Council, Lord Gowrie, that he would be angry if he lived in the north? He was referring to arts funding.

The task for us all is to look at the allocations as they emerge in the first year. We will then discover which parts of the country need to make more of an effort and what issues are involved. It may be that people simply do not know that they will only get lottery money if they apply for it. It seems that some people think that they will get an award in the post. If the hon. Lady has good and popular projects in her part of the world, she should encourage the people concerned to apply for money.

In terms of the Millennium Commission, the regional balance has been quite different. Compared with the amounts spent on the millennium forests in Scotland and on cycle tracks in various parts of the country—or with the huge amounts spent in Doncaster and Portsmouth—a relatively modest amount has been spent in London. The task now is to encourage people to realise that this is a remarkable opportunity.

The day-to-day projects, of course, are benefiting, such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution collection at Chatham, which has received £335,000 towards the cost of housing the collection, and the Bennachie local community centre in rural Aberdeenshire, which has benefited to the tune of £311,000 from the Millennium Commission. An Arts Council grant has given young people in Downpatrick in County Down the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. A range of projects, such as the Millom amateur operatic society in Barrow, the Barrow and District table tennis club and the Kirkgate centre trust, have benefited. I regret that the right hon. Member for Copeland is so deaf to his constituents' interests that he continues to talk while I refer to just three of the 10 projects, amounting to nearly £250,000, in Cumbria.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the delight that the Gillingham Jumpers take in the £650,000 grant that will allow them to establish a national trampolining centre outside London, to the great advantage of their sport?

My hon. Friend makes the point precisely. There will inevitably be controversy about flagship projects, but it seems to me that trampolining is an exercise in which all in political life should engage.

Lancaster university has been delighted to welcome a flagship project in the form of the Ruskin library. It is a magnificent project, which has enabled us to gather many documents together. We have also received wonderful grants for the youth theatre and for our sports facilities.

My hon. Friend is a vigorous champion of the lottery and she alerts her constituents to the opportunities that it presents. She helps her constituents to access that wonderful new source of funding that enables people to realise their dreams. I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned a library, as there have been many inaccurate comments about libraries of late. Libraries can receive funding through a number of sources—through the arts, the heritage side and possibly through the Millennium Commission as well.

I am reminded of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who I think was somewhat mean-spirited in her reference to the Churchill papers. Not only have those papers come to her city but she failed to tell the House that the Arts Council has awarded the Junction in Cambridge £95,000. The Cambridge Arts Theatre Trust has received £6.5 million, the Fulbourn parish council has received £19,000, the Over community centre has received £126,000, Hills road sixth form college has received £739,000 and St. Neots Museum Ltd. has received £50,000. That is a much fairer commentary on the pattern of funding provision from the lottery. We are ensuring that small groups—not just those that grab the headlines—have the opportunity to take forward their arts, heritage and education proposals.

The national lottery has changed the face of funding in the arts, sport and heritage. More than £586 million has already been awarded to 2,111 excellent projects—and that is just the start. Over the next seven years, the total contribution to the five good causes is expected to amount to more than £9 billion. It is the people's lottery: millions play, millions watch and millions win. In the years ahead, a bonanza of billions of pounds will benefit the causes that we value.

The national lottery truly is the "dream machine"—both for the 30,000 people who have a flutter each week and for those organisations that flourish as a result of that flutter. It has been an enormous success so far and that success will not be undermined by the cynicism and carping of the Labour party.

When we enacted the lottery legislation, Labour—after much wringing of hands—voted for it. Some of the wayward hordes on the Opposition Back Benches failed to do so, but many of their constituencies have received lottery awards just the same. The Government, the licensed operator and the distributing bodies have brought about a success beyond the expectations or the dreams of the lottery's most fervent advocates. It is a national institution devised by a national party in the national interests for our nation's future.

Labour looks to destroy, undermine and to belittle the success of our lottery. No lottery retailer, winner or person interested in good causes should support Labour's lottery policy. I advise those in the industrial and commercial sectors to take the Labour party's vituperative approach to the successful lottery operator as a very sinister indication of its gut feeling about the private sector.

We celebrate the lottery; we celebrate its success and we plan for its improvement. That improvement will be based on practical experience and constructive suggestions. We will not be driven by ideology or prejudice against success. The Labour party's line on the lottery is simple: snuff out success, punish profit and cheat the good causes of the deal that they deserve. I urge the House to recognise that sport, the arts and heritage have a wonderful opportunity. We are investing in the young and in the millennium and we are providing help to the needy. I commend the lottery and our amendment to the House.

5.5 pm

I rise to speak for only a few minutes. I did get a little dizzy with excitement about the success of the lottery—although I have not noticed that success on the council estate that I represent. Undoubtedly, its success will trickle down to those who are out of work sooner or later.

I have put on record my opposition to the concept of a national lottery. I am still far from happy about it, but I accept that it is here. When the idea was first debated, I predicted that Governments of all persuasions might be tempted to dismiss their responsibilities by allowing lottery money to sort out the problems that are normally the province of central Government. I am not saying that that is happening too much at present, but I believe that it will occur.

I remind the House that when the Government first announced their plans for the lottery they claimed that its primary purpose would be to provide money for good causes: arts, sport, heritage, charities, the voluntary sector and the millennium fund. In other words, it was claimed that the money would improve the quality of life of those who were disadvantaged through poverty.

Of course, one of the first such disadvantaged families to benefit was the Churchill family, which received £14 million for papers that most of us thought already belonged to the state. Another poor recipient of a generous award was Eton college—every working class person gets there at some time or other. It is estimated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will receive about £400 million, which is more than the combined allocation to charities and sporting organisations.

To be fair, I must point out that Eton college did not receive an award: the college was only one partner in a scheme to build an athletics track. The main beneficiary was the Windsor, Slough and Eton athletics club, which is open to and provides sporting facilities for the whole community.

I feel much better now, Madam Speaker. Although the lottery is probably here to stay, it has caused problems—despite the Secretary of State's good news. The Government have managed to unite the churches on the issue, which is a miracle in itself. The churches are united over the lottery mainly because they are working at grass-roots level. We are talking not about the churches that oppose gambling in principle—one certainly would not say that about the Catholic church, for instance—but about those that see the lottery's effect on poorer people.

The lottery is creating problems for those who can least afford it. I do not accept the Secretary of State's argument based on a survey that showed that, on average, people spend only £2 per week and, therefore, there is no real hardship. I do not believe in those averages. Some of my constituents, who can ill afford it, spend £2, £4 and £5 on scratchcards and lottery tickets. Those people are trying to find their way out of the poverty trap, which to some extent has been created by the Government. The lottery is also having an adverse effect on what I would call the good charities that do a damned good job of work and on those volunteers who do it free of charge.

The lottery has changed the ethos of charitable giving. In our communities, people in pubs and clubs may have won the equivalent of one or two pints of beer in a prize draw but they knew that they were buying tickets in support of the local football club, a local children's hospital or some other good cause. The ethos has changed, and that is having an effect on charities.

The desire to be rich quickly through a lottery or by gambling is, of course, a personal decision but, speaking personally and not on behalf of my party or anybody else, I think it is disgraceful that the Government encourage people to gamble, to get rich quick, without accepting the responsibility and the consequences that go with it. I realise that the lottery will continue, but there must be reform. I support Labour's motion, especially the parts about section 5 licences, about making the lottery non-profit making and about a fairer distribution of grants. That has already been debated and will continue to be debated.

I also suggest reducing the cash prize. I know that will be controversial but I cannot for the life of me think why somebody should want £27 million and can say, "It will never affect my life or my family." In time it will prove to have an opposite effect. Why cannot the prize money be distributed more widely if the lottery has to remain continue? That should also be taken into account.

In the past decade, the nation has been encouraged by the Government to take the attitude, "I'm all right Jack", and to look after number one. Fortunately, most people in this country still care about others and many of them care in adversity. It is the Government's duty to encourage that caring attitude by providing resources from the Treasury and not by way of scratchcards or Saturday night gambling.

5.11 pm

It is a great pleasure to participate in such a good-natured debate, the character of which owes a great deal to the two opening speeches. I admire the skill and enthusiasm with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has addressed herself to her office. I hope that she knows that she has the enthusiastic support of us all.

I am also enthusiastic about the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I am genuinely surprised—and this is not a cheap crack—that the Labour party considers that it has so many able and professional spokesmen that it can discard the right hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he still speaks from a senior position on the Front Bench, and although I cannot pretend to agree with everything he said I enjoyed his speech. It is a tribute to his powers that he was able to make such a speech just a few days after taking up his post.

Whatever quibbles or fundamental differences people may have in the context of the lottery we can surely all agree that it has been a spectacular success. Nearly 30 million peopl—70 per cent. of the population—regularly play it. Some £1 billion has already been received in about a year, which is twice as much as was predicted. Much of that success is due to the efficiency with which the operator, Camelot, set about its task.

I am sorry that Camelot's role has become a matter of controversy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt extremely ably with criticisms of Camelot, thus sparing me the need to do more than say in the spirit of good fellowship to the right hon. Member for Copeland that surely the Labour party cannot have it both ways. If the National Audit Office had condemned the manner in which Camelot was awarded the contract Labour Members would rightly have jumped up and condemned it. They cannot dismiss as if it is a matter of no moment the fact that the National Audit Office commended in highly specific terms the reasoning of Mr. Davis and his team in preferring Camelot.

I am grateful, if not embarrassed, by the tribute of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, for whom, as we all know, the Department was created. It is rather sad that he is not still in it. He is missing the point. Of course we accept the verdict of the National Audit Office: that is not and never has been in dispute and it is a complete verification of the decision. I am not arguing about the decision to award the contract to Camelot. The point is that in the first year Camelot is quickly into profit. In the second year it will have a very large profit, and from then on it will be into excessive profit.

We are saying not that Camelot got the contract unjustly or that the decision was wrong but that it is heading rapidly for huge, excessive returns on its investment. The Secretary of State and the director general have powers to take action to deal with that, and they should use them.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification. The issue turns on what one considers to be excessive. As I understand it, although, of course, Camelot must speak for itself, over the seven years of its licence it anticipates raising some £9 billion through the lottery. As soon as £3.7 billion has been raised, which will happen quite soon, more than 30 per cent. of the take will go to good causes, only 1.5 per cent. will go to Camelot and less than 1 per cent. after tax is its profit. With the greatest respect, it is hard to see that as excessive.

We must recall that Mr. Branson, admirable entrepreneur that he is, lent his name to an application that was more expensive and would have cost more than the Camelot application. The right hon. Gentleman must be careful not to let it appear that the Labour party would prefer a non-profit making organisation, even an inefficient and ramshackle one, to an efficient, profit-making organisation.

We all feel some concern about the pools industry, about which the Opposition have made many genuine points. But it seems ironic that Opposition Members are ready to speak out for an industry that is entirely about private profit while condemning the lottery, in which only the operator makes what in the context of the turnover is a very modest profit.

Before leaving that issue, for the avoidance of doubt I should say that because I register an interest as an adviser to part of the Racal group it was erroneously suggested by one or two newspapers when the Camelot grant was made that I was in some way associated with Camelot because Racal is one of the participants. I have absolutely nothing whatever to do with that part of Racal and I never uttered a sentence to any Racal executive about these matters. I speak as I do because I genuinely believe that at a time when catastrophe can be seen in all manner of projects the fact that Camelot has worked quickly and efficiently should be commended. The future must look after itself.

A point that troubles me has not been mentioned much so far and it is the question of the tax take. I think that I can safely say that the Treasury's ambitions were rather larger than the 12 per cent. for which it was ultimately forced to settle. Because the lottery has been such a success the Treasury has done rather well. The right hon. Member for Copeland said that the Treasury would get over £400 million. I am not making a pedantic point when I say that I gather that the figure could be as high as £500 million and, of course, there will also be the corporation tax from Camelot's profit. Therefore the lottery is a nice little earner for our Ken.

One gathers that some senior figures in the Treasury still bear the bruises of what they regard as a defeat in failing to get a higher tax rate. However, if anyone is contemplating introducing a higher tax rate in the forthcoming Budget I urge them to think again because in the history of spectacular own goals that would merit a chapter all on its own. An increase in taxation is provided for in the rules and 60 per cent. of the cost of that would come out of the prize money and 40 per cent. would come from the good causes. That would damage the credibility of the lottery because international experience shows that it is the amount of the prize money that conditions the amount of interest in a lottery. Every time there is a roll-over week purchases rise by 20 per cent. and there is another £3 million for good causes.

Was not the same mistake made when commercial television—a licence to print money—was introduced? The system has since been adjusted and now other companies bid for the franchise, as Carlton Television and Central Television did. Would it not have been much better—I know I am saying this with a bit of hindsight, but the system should be introduced—if people had bid to run the national lottery franchise? Five per cent. for running it was an arbitrary figure because it was not known how long it would take to install terminals. The Government passed everything on to the man giving the franchise—they took a step back and did virtually nothing—and we the public and Parliament are entitled to reconsider the whole system.

The best time to reconsider it is when the franchise runs out. I am also enthusiastic about the hon. Gentleman, although not to the extent of wanting Sheffield Wednesday to win tonight—he is a director of the club if anyone has forgotten—but, if the Government had had anything to do with the allocation of the franchise, we know what would have happened: it would have been suggested that one of the component parts of the franchise made donations to the Conservative party and that the whole thing was another example of sleaze. It is just as well, therefore, that the Government kept out of it.

May I be forgiven for just going back to a fundamental point about the creation of the lottery? We need to understand that it was created to benefit good causes that could not expect to benefit, to the extent necessary to do the job that needed to be done, from the normal public expenditure debates that go on, whatever party is in power. People sometimes say, "The money should go to the health service." I believe in the health service being funded and the Government have a good record in funding it, but that is a matter for the public purse.

In normal public expenditure, one cannot expect the restoration of the Royal Opera house or the construction of a new opera house in Cardiff to take priority over the legitimate demands of the health service, and that is why the lottery was created and why particular causes were identified. Provided we do not lose sight of that, the lottery could be a great success, not merely in its ability to generate money but in the good that the expenditure of its money can do.

The fact that the lottery is a huge success in generating money does not mean that it will be such a success in the long run. It will be a huge success only if money is spent wisely. My enthusiasm for some of the ways in which the money is being spent is muted and I say that in all candour, not simply because we all have a duty, especially those of us who were implicated in the creation of this thing, to speak out if we identify certain things going wrong.

It is said that there is bound to be controversy over the allocation of money. Up to a point that is true, but only up to a point. I shall consider the four distributing bodies and forget for a moment about the national lottery charities board. I am not aware of and have not read a line of criticism of any of the distributions that the Sports Council has organised, so one must presume that, run as it is by a blunt northerner, Rodney Walker, from the world of rugby league, it has got it right.

The Arts Council has done a good job and some of the controversy that it has sailed into has been inevitable. Of course there are people who are going to object, for instance, to large grants being given to Covent Garden, and I understand that. Covent Garden has only itself to blame if it is seen as a elitist institution from which most ordinary members of the public, which includes practically all of us here, are disfranchised and it has become a place where wealthy business men take their friends and where the public is somewhere up in the gods.

With that history, Covent Garden cannot wonder about the controversy, even though it will place some of the blame on the fact that it has not received the same amount of public money as other international opera houses, but let us leave that argument on one side. If we are serious, however, about having international opera in this country, we cannot continue with a house where the scenery is moved by first world war submarine engines. In taking on public opinion, as to a degree the Arts Council did in making that award, it got it right.

We must ensure that the grants do not subsidise herds of white elephants, and anyone who is naive about this must study, as I was forced to and as no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is having to do even as we speak, the fate of the British library. Merely providing money for some grand construct does not guarantee that it is delivered.

I have a real worry: with all this money being handed out, who is monitoring how it is spent, who is ensuring that these wretched things are delivered and who is monitoring the time and the cost? I see scandals looming. I do not want to sound like Enoch Powell on a bad day, but one sees the River Tiber foaming with many unfinished projects and people must keep an eye on that.

If one were brash enough to give the other distributing bodies an end-of-term report, one would have to be muted in one's enthusiasm. Of course it is inevitable that the national heritage memorial fund should appear to be in the business of transferring resources from the have-nots to the haves as the people who own the heritage tend to be the haves and many of the people who buy the tickets tend to be the have-nots. In the face of that, it was courting disaster in making its first award the somewhat dubious purchase of the Churchill papers. I say that as someone who cares about the lottery's integrity. If the man in the street loses faith in lottery money expenditure being used for things that he and his family will benefit from, trouble and problems will arise.

The millennium fund proceeds at a stately pace, partly because of the rules that force it to go around the nation drawing in applications rather than more dirigiste principles. My concern sometimes is whether it is aiming for this millennium or the next one and what we will see in place when the great day dawns.

We are an age perhaps without a great deal of vision, in which people with vision are regularly trampled over by people who object because visionaries are uncomfortable people to live with and because this is the age of the nimby. The visionary therefore does not have much of a part to play, but it would be nice to use some of the substantial resources in the national heritage memorial fund to create buildings that people will look at in a couple of centuries' time with the same awe and wonder that they contemplate this place, Westminster abbey or some of the other great buildings around the nation. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I am bashing my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth)— it is nothing personal. I regret that such buildings will not be created.

May we go back to first principles? I remember, because I was there, when the proposition was first put that charities should be supported. It was never part of the original thinking of the lottery that charities would be beneficiaries. That was agreed because the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and others pointed out that charities would lose out—a rain shadow effect would be created by the imposition of the national lottery.

The proposal was in the White Paper and in my private Member's Bill.

No, I am talking about before the White Paper. Before that, thank God, some thinking was done, as privately as leaks made possible in Whitehall.

During that process, it was determined that it would be appropriate for charities to benefit on the basis that nothing could be worse than debates in this place being disfigured by people saying that charities were going to lose out and so we should not have a national lottery. In other words, Paris was worth a mass and the mass was bringing in the charities.

The charities could benefit from that or it could be a Trojan horse—the jury is out on that. One of the things that saddens me—I fear that it is probably more the fault of the Home Office than the national lottery charities board—is that, somewhere along the line, people forgot that charities received money so that they could be recompensed for any losses. We have built a foolish rod for our own back in allowing it to be said that a cancer charity such as Tenovus, which raised £1.5 million a year for cancer research, will not get that money back from the lottery.

It is self-evident that, despite the efforts that were made to make the rules for small lotteries less oppressive, they are not of interest when big lotteries are around. I genuinely say that, if there is still time to rectify this, it would be sensible for national lottery charities board money to be distributed to charities that could show on any normal accountancy basis that they had made a loss.

I seriously think that it was an oversight that the Department that takes a lead on the national lottery was not given responsibility for the national lottery charities board and that it was left to the Home Office. The Home Office perhaps thinks that it has—and it probably does—bigger and more important things to do than dealing with the NLCB. When I contemplate the membership of the charities board and some of its operations, I realise that if the Home Office was a car factory the board would be a model made on a Friday afternoon before a bank holiday. Given the type of outfit that has emerged, which has taken so long to get its act together and has distributed the money in this politically correct manner, I am surprised that it was necessary to create such a bureaucracy. It could have been farmed out to Lambeth council, which would have done a similar job.

I do not wish to deal with some of the small, progressive charities that have benefited in this round. I have only one concern and it is that the national lottery should survive in its present form for long enough, without the money being taken for all manner of other things, to make a fundamental difference to the sporting and artistic fabric of the nation. If the board's actions undermine the lottery's credibility with the public, most of whom would not put money into the collecting tins of the organisations that have benefited in the handout, all of us who support the lottery have problems. I hope that something will be done to curb the excesses of the board before it drags the whole thing into disrepute.

It is easy to see what will happen because, alas, these things are all too predictable. The board has moved out into the more exotic fringes of charitable activity and it has been criticised for doing so. We know what will happen next. One or two of the operations will not be well run and perhaps some inefficiency or even a little fraud will creep in. The next story in the tabloids will be that someone has run off with some of the proceeds.

We are concerned that the national lottery should be something that our constituents—ordinary folk—think is a jolly good idea. Why, why, why could they not give the money to big mainstream charities covering a wide range of issues so that people could say, "Yes, that is where I want my money to go"? The failure to do that will cost the reputation of the lottery dear.

The one benefit that the national lottery charities board has over other distribution organisations is that it is able to give grants for current expenditure purposes. I know that the current-capital distinction is maintained in order to make it easier to defend the additionality rule that was negotiated with the Treasury when I was Chief Secretary. If the line is blurred, it is felt that the Treasury has a greater opportunity to get the money. Of course, people have failed to point out that the Treasury can cut sensitive grants and just say that it was not because of the national lottery. The Arts Council grant was cut two years ago, not because of the national lottery but because the Treasury wanted to cut it and the then Secretary of State agreed, I believe wrongly, that it should happen.

The plain fact is—I satirise only slightly to make this point—that there is no point having the best constructed theatres in this country if the troupes of players running around in them do not have the money to keep going. The additionality rule does only one thing—it protects existing public expenditure. It does not build in the sort of increases that will be needed if there is to be proper growth in the performing arts and other sensitive areas. If the best one can hope for is an Arts Council grant that does not increase in real terms, we will have problems unless there is a breach in the dyke. I hope that it will come.

5.33 pm

I am diametrically opposed to the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) on the principle of the lottery, but he has done the House a service by the way in which he has presented the arguments for improving the lottery and for ensuring that it delivers what it was established to deliver. He was right to draw our attention to the need to compensate those charities that have lost out. I am glad that he touched on additionality, a point which was put to the Secretary of State earlier. I am glad that he reminded us that even the 12 per cent. figure which is taken by the Government is an underestimate and that, with the additional tax placed on the profits of Camelot, nearer to 14 per cent. goes into the Government's pockets.

From the Secretary of State we heard the litany of good causes—many of them are extremely good causes—which have been beneficiaries. Surely the philosophical issue which many hon. Members will want to address is whether it would be better to fund a hospice directly from the health expenditure budget or through a national lottery. At least the former would be based on the ability to pay through income tax. Rather than just pretending that anyone who does not like the national lottery is, ergo, opposed to funding hospices or any of the other good causes that the Secretary of State mentioned, the House should address that moral and philosophical question

The Secretary of State reminded us that this is not the first time that we have had a national lottery. It is worth reminding the right hon. Lady that a study of history does not augur well for the lottery. The previous lottery collapsed amidst allegations of corruption and with a loss of public confidence. The Conservative social reformer, William Wilberforce, having successfully abolished the slave trade in 1807 said to his friend, Henry Thornton,

"Well Henry what shall we abolish next? The lottery, I think".

I wonder how long it will be before the House has to consider the desirability of funding so much of our national programme of good causes, charitable works, arts, millennium expenditure and sports from something that is fuelled by gambling.

In April 1993, I was one of the 39 Members who voted against the national lottery in the final vote. I also opposed earlier attempts at introduction by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) who is here today and by the right hon. and learned Member for Putney. In Committee, I raised a number of concerns. I am grateful that today provides an opportunity, in Opposition time, to look at those questions again. I shall have no hesitation in going into the Lobby to support the Opposition's motion, although I wish it went even further.

I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments. Is he speaking for his party? Is he saying that the Liberal Democrats want to abolish the lottery? I want to know that, as do others.

If the hon. Gentleman had followed the party conference in the autumn, he would have seen that the Liberal Democrats debated the national lottery and produced some thorough-going proposals, some of which are similar to those in the Opposition's motion, to improve and change the lottery. The party is not opposed to the national lottery. It was a free vote issue when we discussed it in the earlier part of the 1990s and it remains so today. I am speaking on behalf of my party today by voicing my concerns about the lottery.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Let me advance my arguments and then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

How do we know what the policy is?

I am coming to that.

In Committee I tabled amendments to ban scratchcards, to prevent the roll-over of obscene amounts of prize money and to impose limitations on advertising, especially those targeted at young people and those living in poorer areas. Even before the national lottery, the United Kingdom had the highest per capita level of gambling anywhere in western Europe. A total of £4.50 was spent per head every single week.

I know the hon. Gentleman's views on this morally, but why did he describe the prize levels as obscene? It is rather patronising. I should like to win an obscene amount of money. The bigger the top prize, the more that lottery ticket sales increase. It is why people buy tickets.

That is precisely what I intend to deal with. It builds up an element of hysteria and frenzy. One winner obtained £17 million, which seems an extraordinary amount of money. That creates a frenzy which fuels the national lottery.

People do not consider the odds against winning. Vast numbers of people throughout the country pay massive amounts of money. The lottery is targeted at people who live in poorer areas. They think that somehow they will escape from their poverty or the conditions in which they live because of their stake in the lottery. There is nothing patronising about holding that view, because it has been demonstrated by research the world over. Indeed, the Secretary of State boasts that about 75 per cent. of the population have at some stage played the lottery. Anyone who dares question the premise on which the lottery operates is branded as a killjoy or, as implied in one or two interventions, a whinger. These are issues that are worthy of serious parliamentary debate and should not be so lightly dismissed.

In America, in 1989, Clotfelter and Cook published their study of lotteries, entitled "Selling Hope". They stated:

"We can conclude with considerable confidence that the lottery is a powerful recruiting device, which in 1974"—

that was the year on which they focused—

"was responsible for inducing about one-quarter of the adult population who would otherwise not have done so to participate in commercial gambling."

In other research, Professor Ernest Mittler states that the trend has been away from traditional lotteries towards the introduction of casino-style devices such as video lottery terminals. In turn, this has spawned the usual growth of organised crime associated with gambling.

I am cynical about the calls that I hear for research to be commissioned into the links between the lottery and gambling in the United Kingdom. The findings of American research that is already available are extensive and conclusive, but plenty of research has been undertaken in the United Kingdom. I draw the attention of the House to the work of Dr. Sue Fisher. In the 1993 edition of the "Journal of Gambling Studies" she examined the level of gambling among British children. She found that in one secondary school, 62 per cent. of children gambled on fruit machines, 17 per cent. at least weekly and 5.7 per cent. pathologically.

In August, the British Medical Journal reported that since the inception of the lottery and the relaxation of controls on gambling, there has been a 17 per cent. increase in calls to Gamblers Anonymous. Expenditure on the national lottery is more than £100 million every week, of which £40 million is spent on scratchcards. The accompanying hype, frenzy and even hysteria all underline the potential of the lottery for good and for evil.

When people are asked why the lottery can do good, they invariably reply that it helps charity. That argument has been trotted out from those on the Government Front Bench today. The stark truth is that only about 5 per cent. of the take goes to charity. We know that 85 per cent. of the charities that applied for funding in the first tranche were disappointed. On Friday, the Government announced that there would be more research into whether charities are losing out. Research is not needed. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has made it clear already that it has lost £500,000 since the launch of the national lottery. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates an overall decline of about £276 million.

The Secretary of State has alluded to the Irish experience. Trocaire, the largest third world charity in Ireland, saw a massive reduction of nearly two thirds in its income once the national lottery had been established there. In January 1992, I told the House that 16 leading Irish charities had written to the Taoiseach to tell him that charitable lotteries had lost half their income and that the situation had reached crisis point with 50 per cent. of charitable donations being lost as a result of the Irish national lottery. Why have we had to repeat the experience? What will more research tell us that we do not know already? Is it not another example of wilfully allowing the horse to bolt when it was within our power to shut the gate?

The hon. Gentleman is pretty scathing about the lottery. Many of us heard him speak in Committee on these matters. Has he made the same criticisms of the pools companies? The pools provide the same sort of gambling and the same inducement to gamble. Has he said the same things about horse racing at the grand national and all other meetings?

I shall move on to the liberalisation of gambling laws. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is straightforward. The pools and horse racing—I am not per se against any form of gambling—are not sponsored by the state. The national lottery is, and that is why it is fundamentally different.

What money goes where and who decides to give it to whom? There seems to be a gaggle of the politically correct and the chattering classes that is virtually unaccountable to the House or to those who buy lottery tickets. There is the suspicion that everything is worked out in an Islington wine bar. The regional discrepancies bear out that argument. Merseyside knew in advance that it would be a lottery loser for reasons to which the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) alluded. It was known in the area that there would be a loss of jobs in the pools industry. Jobs were bound to disappear, and they have.

It is arguable, therefore, that there should have been a bias to compensate for Merseyside's job losses. Instead, the region has received the smallest percentage share of lottery handouts, only 1.8 per cent. compared with London's 25.5 per cent. If the House studies the charts setting out regional giving and population, it will find the discrepancies extraordinary. For example, some 9.4 per cent. of the population lives in the north-west of England, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) said in an intervention, only 4.5 per cent. of total lottery money has come to the area. Similarly, the area's application to the Millennium Commission for a national museum of sport to be established on Merseyside—the idea was supported by political opinion across the spectrum and by local authorities throughout the area—was rejected out of hand. That was at least an opportunity to sweeten the pill. Instead, there has been the inevitable bitter reaction that the process of dispensing funds is being distorted.

In July, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report that warned that the public's support for the national lottery would be lost unless the questions that I have outlined were properly addressed. It stated:

"The National Lottery is in danger of losing public sympathy. It stands accused of transferring money from poorer communities to benefit the rich, of not providing enough new money to good causes and of leading some people into addictive patterns of gambling."

It added:

"The report also proposes new safeguards to ensure that inner cities and other disadvantaged communities receive their fair share of an estimated £32 billion sale of lottery tickets during the first seven years."

My last quotation from the report warns

"of a possible public backlash—with disastrous consequences for charities and others who will increasingly depend on the lottery—unless there is action to reassure the public that its benefits outweigh any harmful social consequences."

The hon. Gentleman and I are neighbours from the north-west. We want, of course, to see a fair share of lottery proceeds coming our way. I think that he is being a bit churlish in not recognising how much is already coming to Liverpool on the sports side, for example, with the Greenbank project receiving nearly £500,000. St. Helens council—on Merseyside—is receiving nearly £1 million. Brouhaha International, on the arts side, is receiving nearly £33,000 and the Everyman theatre in Liverpool—it is one of our favourite theatres—is receiving nearly £100,000. We should recognise what is being achieved while, of course, asking for more for the north-west.

Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall take as an example one of the projects to which he referred. The Greenbank project relates specifically to disabled and handicapped people and—he would know this if he were familiar with its work—has lurched from funding crisis to funding crisis as its statutory funds have been reduced over the past few years. That raises the additionality argument that the right hon. and learned Member for Putney was talking about.

Public confidence will be sapped by the behaviour of the Government and by that of Camelot, which is known in Liverpool as Cashalot. It is unjustifiable that Camelot's five directors all received a bonus worth 50 per cent. of their salaries because the lottery started on time. In addition, they stand to collect a further 140 per cent. bonus if they meet their target figures by September 1997. What sort of good cause is that? That will bring the whole scheme into disrepute. Camelot's profits over the first five months amount to £4.5 million. The Government have taken £169 million over that period. What has that to do with good causes or the impulses on which the lottery was established in the first place?

An alternative bid was put forward by Richard Branson. He proposed that the money would go back into other charities. That would have been a better approach than that adopted by Camelot. No profit should be involved in the administration of the lottery. There is no need for there to be.

Under Richard Branson's scheme, the administrative costs would have been very much higher. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to a newsflash that arrived a moment ago, he would know that the profit made by Camelot is only 1p in the pound. It is making large sums because it is supremely efficient.

Nevertheless, in the first five months, it made a profit of £169 million. It is a monopoly. There is no reason why it should make such sums. The money could have, and should have, gone to charities.

In this context, I should like to mention the role of the BBC, which has effectively given Camelot the equivalent of £120 million of free advertising since the lottery was conceived. When the BBC's charter comes before the House, as it will in the next parliamentary Session, many of us will ask why a public corporation has been fuelling the national lottery.

It is also worth pointing out that the relevant BBC programme is watched by 27 per cent. of all children from the age of four to 15. Primary school teachers are increasingly reporting how children talk of nothing but their parents' stakes and, when asked to do imaginative writing, they write about what they would do with the money if they won.

Given that the programme is watched by children of an impressionable age, is it wise for the BBC to feature the Secretary of State for National Heritage on it?

The hon. Gentleman's question raises an important point about how the lottery can be used to create what the Government initially thought would be a feel-good factor, how it can be manipulated for political purposes and how the funds can be used like a pork barrel for the dispensation of goodies to favoured people in various parts of the country.

The lottery is a poll tax in carpet slippers. Once the word "fun" is attached to something, people queue up to surrender their money, which is then dispensed by unaccountable people to people and causes over which the House has no control.

The controversial payment of nearly £13 million for the Churchill archives followed soon after by the suicide of a man who had forgotten to buy his ticket; the repetitive stories of how undreamt of riches have led to broken marriages and families; the obscenity of pay-outs of up to £18 million; the lottery's regressive impact on the poor; its stimulation of gambling; its adverse effects on charities; and the creation of an entire culture based on chance rather than thrift, effort or prudence should surely make us think more deeply about the corrosive effects on British society of what the Secretary of State very foolishly described today as a dream machine. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be supporting the motion.

5.52 pm

I find the morality of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) extraordinarily hard to follow. Why should the lottery have such a corrosive effect on poor innocent Britons when there has been a lottery in Spain, France and virtually every other European country for a great many years?

The hon. Gentleman uses the analogy of the United States. I was there at Easter, and I know that virtually every state has its own lottery. Some of those lottery proceeds are used to fund state expenditure, and I cannot say that people there seem especially corrupted or unhappy as a result. What is especially wrong with the lottery that is not wrong with horses, the pools, greyhounds or every other form of betting?

It is state-sponsored.

Yes, but what about the tote? That is supported by the state, and it is a quango. The hon. Gentleman should think through his argument.

All of us wonder whether it is the policy of the Liberal party to do away with the lottery. We should be grateful for some clarification.

What is fascinating to hon. Members of all parties is that we are for once debating a huge success, but Opposition Members clearly find it hard to come to terms with that; hence the concentration on the charity issue. That is important —

rose—

I shall deal with charities later, but I wish to make some other remarks first.

The difference between this debate and one that I might have had when I was Minister for the Arts three or four years ago is that then I would inevitably have been apologising to every hon. Member who asked, like my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Mr. Jesse]) and for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), why some money had not been made available for a particular theatre, dance hall or gallery in his constituency. Today, almost every Back Bencher has said thank you to the lottery, via the Secretary of State, for favours received or favours expected. Leaving charities on one side, the change in the amount of funding now available for the arts, sports, heritage and the millennium is of an astonishing order.

When I was the last Minister for the Arts, between 1990 and 1992, I remember fighting the Treasury and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who was then Chief Secretary and who has now left the Chamber. I fought to get a £28 million, or 14 per cent., increase in the Arts Council's budget. When I got it, it was considered so astonishing that it merited a cartoon in the Evening Standard, which I have of course pinned up in the loo at home. Today, that £28 million represents almost exactly what is generated in one day by the lottery for the five good causes.

It must not be forgotten that our ability on the back of the lottery—which I, for one, certainly do not find evil—to do constructive work for the cultural and sporting infrastructure of this country is almost infinite. Members of all parties are right to say that we have a golden opportunity, and that we should not make a mess of it.

We have to come to terms with the fact that we are living with a fantastic success. Who would have thought, a year or two ago, that on the corner of almost every street, like a favourite pub sign, one sees the placard with the navy blue male fist and crossed fingers welcoming us in to the shop to buy a lottery ticket? It has become a familiar household insignia, and is potentially very productive for this country.

When I was Minister for the Arts, I had no doubts about the benefits of a national lottery. I knew very well that there was no other possible way that I could get from the Treasury a reasonably large increase for the arts, museums or galleries. I was taken around the Victoria and Albert museum by Elizabeth Esteve-Coll, the museum's brilliant director at the time, who has since retired. She pointed out to me the holes in the roof, from which water was dripping into buckets between the statues. I was taken to Sadler's Wells, and shown the site where the company would have loved to build a new theatre, although there was no possibility of it at that time.

I went backstage at the royal opera house, and was shown the submarine engines, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney referred, which were used to move the scenery up and down. People backstage told me that, amazingly, there had been only one fatal accident. That has all changed greatly for the better, as a result of the money available from the lottery.

Also in my position as Minister for the Arts, I remember visiting the Minister for Culture in Greece, who wanted huge sums of money to rebuild the classical amphitheatres along the Mediterranean coast, for the benefit of tourism but also for the sake of Greek history. As we drove from the airport, I asked the question that Ministers for the Arts always asked each other in those days which was, "How are you doing for money?" She said that she was saved by the lottery. It was a phrase that I never forgot.

The right hon. Gentleman described a moment ago how the lottery and its sign was taking over from the corner pub as something with which people identified, and I am sure that that is true in many areas. Apart from that, what percentage of his income does he spend on lottery tickets?

That is a most extraordinary question. I do not think that it is of any relevance at all, but I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Church's complaint that those people on lower incomes are spending too much of their money on lottery tickets. He should be reminded of the remarks made by the Secretary of State when she quoted research which showed precisely the opposite: the evidence so far is that the amount relatively being spent on lottery tickets by those on higher wages is very much greater.

I shall return just for a few moments more to the period four or five years ago. I remember being absolutely thrilled when I was able to persuade my right hon. Friend the Member the Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), then the Home Secretary, that we should look seriously at the question of a national lottery, and when in turn we persuaded the Prime Minister to follow that line.

We faced, I may say, very strong opposition from Treasury Ministers throughout, including the Chief Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney, because they quite simply do not like hypothecation of revenue. They do not like money being raised which is going to go to specific causes without going through the Treasury maw en route. But I am delighted that we got the lottery. I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, played a large part in that process too, with his private Member's Bill.

I thank my hon. right Friend for his support.

Not at all.

All the things on the arts front with which I was concerned, which seemed impossible, are now possible, and they are not going to happen only in London, since clearly there is a limit to the number of tattered opera houses to be repaired in London. I have no doubt that, in future grants from the Arts Council, we shall see an increasing spread of the money available throughout the country.

Do I understand that the argument being propounded is that the ends justify the means? I know from experience in Northern Ireland, which has one of the highest rates of unemployment and poverty in the United Kingdom, that the most excessive gambling, the greatest gambling and the largest amount of money spent on gambling occurs in areas where there is—literally—no hope of employment. The greatest amount of money is being spent on the lottery in such areas, because it offers a dream or a hope which the Government do not offer through employment and thrift.

The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a totally different point: to get the Government to spend more money on encouraging employment in Northern Ireland. I see absolutely nothing wrong at all with a lottery offering hope, fun, and the prospect, if one is lucky, of winning a lot of money, and if one is not lucky, of a reasonable proportion going to good causes.

The right hon. Gentleman said that we have run out of decrepit opera houses in London to patch up. If he were devising the scheme for handing out the money, would he change any of the rules to, for example, enable revenue funds to go to arts institutions rather than to the buildings?

I think that such changes are on the way already. I know that the chairman of the Arts Council was in the Gallery listening to the debate, but has now left. My understanding is that the rules have been changed, to the degree that, in an application for capital funding—capital funding going on at the moment—20 per cent. of the money allocated can be used for current expenditure. That change has taken place.

If anyone reads the Arts Council News National Lottery Supplement of August and September, they will see that there is a huge disbursement of Arts Council money, to, for example, theatres up and down the country. When I was Arts Minister, the Arts Council had no capital expenditure money available for theatres whatever.

I used to be taken to see beautiful Victorian Matcham theatres whose roofs were falling in, which needed x millions of pounds for repair and had no hope of it being done. Against that background, I persuaded Lord Wolfson to make £1 million available for a theatre restoration fund, which we matched with £1 million of Government money, in order that there was some money to repair and restore the great Victorian theatres of this country.

Now, there are 12 or so theatres on the list of organisations receiving grants. They are in west Oxfordshire, Bradford, Rossendale, Norwich, Southampton, Hull, Nottingham, Leeds, Sudbury, Bishop's Stortford, Barnsley—all theatres receiving lottery money for repair, rehabilitation, new projects. It is a tremendous development.

I turn to the charities. It was obvious that the charities would always be the difficult part of this exercise, because everyone has or should have their favourite charity or two, and we always think that the ones that we back or are involved with are the best causes—that is why we get involved with them.

The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) forgot to mention that the director general, or whatever he is called, of an individual charity, has an enormous effect on its fund-raising power for the time that he is in office. Why are people employed at reasonably high salaries to run the fund-raising operations of a charity? It is because such people have a track record of raising a lot of money. Some of that salary is often based on the results they achieve. I shall refer to the Royal National Institute for the Blind in a moment.

We should not put all charities in precisely the same box—all suffering, or all benefiting. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham pointed out earlier that the British Red Cross has increased its receipts this year. The Macmillan Cancer Relief Fund has increased its receipts. New charities spawn all the time, and in the past year I have become chairman of one new charity and gone on the board or become a trustee of two others—all unpaid, of course. Only a few days ago, I refused to become chairman of yet another charity, because they come along all the time, they always have brilliant ideas, and we are all trying for the same sources for money.

It is not surprising, therefore, that, in the story of charities as it develops, there are failures and there are successes. Many now benefit from quite a different source of money other than the lottery: gift aid, introduced by the Government. The minimum gift is £250, but for every £3 that one gives within that minimum gift of £250, the charity collects another £1 from the Inland Revenue, and—if one is a top-grade taxpayer—the donor gets 60p back. That is also an important new addition to the funds available to charities.

Of course it is a pity that the National Lottery Charities Board did not get going earlier. Many of us would have welcomed the first lottery awards going to charities from the NLCB. But surely, now that it has started, it would be a huge mistake not to allow it to operate for a year or two, but to insist on changes immediately. It would be a huge mistake to dig up the plant and look at the roots to see whether it was living or not. We must let it get on with its job, and trust that, as it gets to know its task and gain experience, it will act not only in a thoroughly responsible way, but in a way with which all of us interested in charities can be satisfied.

I have great sympathy with the communications director of the board, who I heard say on "Call Nick Ross" yesterday that enormous care had been taken in examining the 1,500 submissions received by the board, and that it had taken a great deal of trouble in how it awarded money. Obviously, those who do not get any complain, and those who do feel very satisfied. That is the way of the world.

It is important that not receiving money from the charities board or, indeed, feeling the pressure from the lottery, should not be used as an excuse, a scapegoat, for difficult decisions that charities should have taken some years ago. I refer specifically to the RNIB, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, and also by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

I have a constituency interest to mention, because the RNIB has just announced that it intends to close the Sunshine House school in East Grinstead that looks after children who are not partially but totally blind.

The children who go to the home are often unable to walk, but, through intensive treatment, they are taught to walk. One parent who came to see me at my advice surgery last Friday said that, when their four-year-old daughter went there, she could not walk at all and was likely to sit on a bean bag for the rest of her life. Thanks to the equipment there, such as multi-ply standing frames and custom-built wheelchairs, she and others are slowly learning to walk. Through learning to walk, they start to communicate, play in groups and so on.

It has been mentioned twice already that the RNIB's income this year has fallen by £500,000, but that is £500,000 out of a total revenue of £42 million. It is using that as a reason for closing the Sunshine home. It has given the parents only six months' notice. It is impossible for the parents to find other appropriate schools for their children by Easter next year. It takes 18 months to have the children re-statemented—to use the official term.

The absence of lottery funds is being used as an excuse for taking a difficult decision which has been in the offing for a long time. I should like to think that the parents could persuade the RNIB to postpone the decision, and to work with them on a business plan and a means of funding the £300,000 deficit in the home. The institute could then wait to see whether, in next year's round of grants from the charities board, it got the money that it needed. There is a possibility that it will do so, and it would be a great mistake if the home was closed in a hurry.

The Millennium Commission has had its critics. It started as a piece of paper from my desk in 1990 or 1991 to No. 10 Downing street suggesting that it should be set up. I had in mind what had happened in South Kensington after the Great Exhibition, when the spare funds were used to start the building of that great collection of museums. It is enormously important that the funds should be used to build monuments or buildings that will be not only representative of our lives in the year 2000 but signposts for generations to come. In that context, I recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister of State the project at Wakehurst Place gardens, a satellite of Kew gardens, to set up a millennium seed bank.

One specimen each of all British flora and 10 per cent. of the world's flora will be collected, including many of the plants that are now threatened with extinction in the arid and semi-arid regions of the world. Thus, a source of flora will be created that could be of immense help to future generations. People will be able to go to Wakehurst for seeds for propagation.

That will be not only a fantastic memorial but a great help to future generations in the propagation of plants. It will also meet our commitments under the convention on biological diversity agreed at the Rio de Janeiro conference. It seems to me exactly the sort of project that the Millennium Commission should be involved with. It would be a signpost for future generations of what we are doing now, and it would look ahead to the spirit of the future. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will support it.

6.13 pm>

I declare that I was one Opposition Member who voted for the Second Reading of the National Lottery etc. Bill. I would do so again if a similar Bill came before the House. I am in favour of the lottery. It has been a success, although it has its drawbacks. I am an occasional partaker in the lottery. I do not buy a ticket on a weekly basis. When I do, if am in on a Saturday evening, I watch the results. I get a buzz out of the fact that I might just win a large sum of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) says, I am not averse to winning a few million pounds if the opportunity arises.

I believe that the odds against winning the lottery are slightly similar to those that we would get if we walked into a bookmakers and asked what odds they would give on a spaceship landing and Elvis Presley getting out. Those are the sort of odds we are talking about, but I still get a buzz. I still think that there is a chance that I will be the one who will win this week. I enjoy it. I think that a lot of people enjoy it.

I accept that there will be some problems with addiction. I also enjoy a glass of wine on a Saturday evening, often at the same time as I watch the lottery results, but I am not an alcoholic and nor are most people who enjoy a drink. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) suggested that we should get rid of the national lottery because it encouraged gambling. I am sure that he is not a prohibitionist and would not seek to ban alcohol or tobacco.

I would ban tobacco.

There might be a case for banning tobacco, but there certainly is not for banning alcohol.

It is remarkable that the Government are in such deep trouble that, even with a success story, they still manage to come out smelling not of violets but of the reverse. Somehow, the press has picked up the story that the lottery is not a great success. It is constantly on about the failures rather than the successes of the lottery. That may be because the Government are now doomed to failure.

I read things, particularly in the Scottish press, which are entirely wrong. I notice that the leader of the Scottish National party has now disappeared. His spokesman on the lottery carped on about the large sums of money that went to the opera houses in London as if that was money of which Scotland was deprived. She does not even understand that there is a separate Scottish arts fund which has nothing to do with London or the distribution of money in England and Wales. We distribute our own money through a separate arts council. I wish that the SNP would stop that sort of carping, but it is typical of narrow-minded nationalism that is based on hatred and envy of one's neighbours rather than love of one's nation. The SNP shows that symptom on all occasions.

Scotland has its own allocation of money for arts, sports and charities. Those funds are separate from funds for England. If London was given millions of pounds more or less, it would not make a blind bit of difference to what happened in Scotland. So perhaps some of the press and the SNP should get their facts right before they make the comments that they do.

The lottery is far from perfect. I join my hon. Friends in their criticisms of the profits that Camelot has made. They are excessive. They are not the level of profits that the Government expected Camelot to make when they established the lottery. We may be gambling when we buy a lottery ticket, but no one seriously thought that Camelot was gambling when it was given the right to set up the lottery. If it was, the gamble has paid off enormously.

I tried to intervene in the speech of the Secretary of State to ask her a simple question. She was strong in her defence of the system that we have in place. If she believes that it is so right and if by some very strange mischance—I do not think that it is likely to happen—she was Secretary of State when the contract came to be renewed, would she renew it on exactly the same terms or would she reduce the profit that Camelot could take? Perhaps her deputy will answer that question when he replies to the debate.

I have reservations about the rolling over of the large prizes. I take the Secretary of State's point that when the prize is rolled over there is a 20 per cent. increase in the number of people buying lottery tickets the following week. That may be correct. I gather that that is roughly some £4 million extra, which the right hon. Lady said went to new causes. However, we could do things in a better way. Many people might buy a lottery ticket because they hope to win £27 million but many people still feel that it is wrong. Most people feel that they could get by for the rest of their lives on £9 million and do not really need £27 million. Therefore, we should look at different ways of using the roll-over.

I want to put a proposition to the House that I do not think has been put before. The first prize should not be rolled over or redistributed among the other prizewinners in that particular week. We should take the £9 million or £10 million, which is the first prize in any one week, and simply give it to the charities board for allocation to the charities. That would be simple and clear. It would require a change in the legislation, but it would be immensely popular with the British people and would solve many people's objections to the large rollover prize the following week. Far from £4 million going to the good causes, £9 million or £10 million would go to the good causes, and I should have thought that that was a good idea.

We must also change the rules on revenue and capital spend. The lottery is a bigger success than anyone thought in terms of raising money and the money that it has to give to the arts and to sport. But, as a result, we shall be building and renewing theatres, sports halls and running tracks. I holiday on the Isle of Arran which has a population of 5,500 and, believe it or not, it has been given £650,000 to build a theatre. That is great. It is wonderful. But it is a small area receiving a large sum of money. When all the capital projects have been completed, what will the money then be used for?

In Glasgow—I use Glasgow only as an example, not to suggest that Scotland is in any way being deprived—Scottish Opera is in dire financial straits and Glasgow Citizens' theatre, because of changes in local government, is facing cuts in its grant from local authorities. Strathclyde region is disappearing and it is a major contributor to the Citizens' theatre. There is no guarantee that the money given by Strathclyde region will be given by the much smaller local authorities that have been created which may well be more concerned with arts in their own areas than arts in Glasgow.

Neither of those bodies has any capital projects in mind. They do not need money for that. Scottish Opera does not want to build a new theatre and the Citizens' theatre has just completed a major overhaul and renovation without the lottery money. What they need is extra money for revenue spend—more grant for the sort of productions that they want to put on.

I accept the argument that even some of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench have put to me, that the great danger of using such money for revenue is that the Government may say that the Scottish Arts Council or the Arts Council for England do not need any Government grant and can just take funds straight from the lottery. That involves the great risk that if the lottery started to lose money it would not be able to supply the funds.

I hope that we shall have a change of Government in the near future. The Secretary of State may not give a guarantee that that would never happen, because Tories are a bit like that, but my Front Bench can give me a guarantee that if a Labour Government were in power they would not do that.

However, we should also consider how organisations could acquire specific money for specific revenue projects. For instance, if Scottish Opera wanted to do an international tour and needed money for that, perhaps it should be able to go to the lottery fund for a specific grant for that purpose. Or perhaps it could obtain specific grants for the training of its orchestra. That would remove the worry about a general grant.

In sport, I want to see the United Kingdom, its component parts and the British team, enjoying great success. One way in which we encourage more sport in Britain is by building and providing more facilities for our youngsters. But that is not enough. We need good coaches. We need to be able to tell good youngsters coming up that they will be given proper coaching and that they will have an income that will enable them to survive while they are learning to be top sportsmen. The lottery fund should be used for those purposes as well. Those are only some of the ideas that must be considered with regard to the lottery.

I finish as I started. There are criticisms to be made of the lottery, but in the main it has provided valuable income for the arts, sports and some charities, although I accept that there are problems there. I voted for the Bill on Second Reading and I would do the same again.

6.16 pm

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) who made a notable contribution to today's debate, as he does to the Select Committee on National Heritage on which I serve with him. He makes a regular and sound contribution to the work of that Committee.

I want to return later to the hon. Gentleman's point about Camelot's profits at the beginning of his speech, but towards the end of his speech he mentioned the training of orchestras. I should declare an interest as a member of the council of the Association of British Orchestras, which has recently received an Arts Council national lottery grant of £22,000 which will be useful to the association in its promotion of the work of British orchestras.

That is just a small illustration of the lottery's tremendous success and the grants that it has been making. I am particularly glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) has returned to the Chamber because it was he who masterminded the introduction of the lottery, the placing of the Bill before the House and the setting of its course. I know that neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who took office about three months ago, nor my hon. Friend the Minister of State will mind my saying that. It really has, in the words of the Government's amendment, been a "huge success". It has exceeded all expectations.

I can remember my right hon. Friend the Member for two cities saying, when the Bill was before us, that he anticipated that the yield for good causes would be, on a cautious estimate, £400 million a year—£80 million for each of the five sets of good causes. We are not far short of three times that yield.

When we debated the national lottery in December 1994, we were told that the weekly average for good causes would be £12 million, which would have amounted to about £600 million a year or £120 million for each of the sets of good causes. The latest figure that we have been given is £1,100 million for about 10.5 or 11 months and it looks as though it will be £1.2 billion over the 12 months, which will produce upwards of £200 million for each of the sets of good causes, and perhaps more like £220 million or £230 million in a complete year. That is a tremendous success and it is a great pity that anyone should want to disparage it.

Nearly 30 million people in the over-16 age group who are entitled to play the lottery do so each week, which is about 68 per cent. of the population. Without doubt, it gives widespread pleasure to those who participate and a substantial yield in tax to the Government—at least £500 million a year in direct tax and another considerable sum from the corporation tax levied on Camelot, quite apart from what it throws up in value added tax and the income tax paid by those who work for the lottery. We are approaching a figure of £600 million, which is not far short of 0.5p in the pound on income tax—a worthwhile return to the Government, at which no one should sneer. The lottery can provide a significant contribution to the funds that the Government have to spend on education, health, pensions and so forth. It really is a brilliant national achievement.

The Opposition know perfectly well that the lottery has produced massive new support for the arts, sports and heritage and for the millennium fund and the caring charities. They also know perfectly well that it has produced a big tax yield, that it is highly popular and that it gives pleasure to a great many people. The Opposition also know that we would have had to introduce a national lottery because if we had not done so, under European Union law, continental countries could have sold their lottery tickets in Britain and siphoned money off to continental good causes—money that should have gone to good causes in Britain.

May I take the hon. Gentleman back a couple of sentences? Why should the Government get a tax yield from the national lottery? It then becomes a form of taxation.

Because the national lottery undoubtedly takes some money away from the football pools, on which the profits went to the Government. If the lottery had not yielded any tax, revenue to the Government would have been lost. It had to be done, therefore, and it was right that it was done.

The Labour and Liberal parties know that people like the national lottery, so they do not want to attack it in principle—except for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who is always serious, earnest and sincere in his approach, although I could not accept his failure to reply when challenged about the moral issues he raised. He said that the lottery is immoral because people bet on it and so it reduces the income of poor families. When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) as to the difference between the lottery and betting on horse racing and football pools, which are very popular in Liverpool, the hon. Gentleman was able to say only that those are provided by private enterprise, but the national lottery is provided by the Government, which seems to make no difference.

The hon. Gentleman has distorted what I said. First, I did not use the word immoral. I made it clear that I am not against gambling per se. I objected to the fact that the state is involved in a national lottery, takes substantial amounts out of it and, in the process, is destroying things like the football pools. The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that many jobs have been lost at Littlewoods, Zetters and Vernons and more will follow.

So, the hon. Gentleman accepts or tolerates the football pools, but that form of betting and betting on horses and dogs is more likely to involve a heavy wager, which can bite substantially into the weekly or monthly wage of someone who might not earn very much, than the purchase of a lottery ticket. Very few people bet heavy sums each week on the lottery because it entails filling out many forms and most people cannot be bothered. If one is trying to protect the welfare of families, one ought to welcome any transfer of betting away from the heavier wagers that are likely on horse racing and football pools.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) mentioned jobs and some may well have been lost in Liverpool, but think of the jobs that have been saved in village shops. The lottery has been the salvation of many of those and has provided an enormous number of new jobs, which are spread throughout the country—the others are only in one city.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Village shops, small shops and corner shops in outer London areas, such as my constituency, are a central part of local community life. People like to go into small shops, not only to purchase their lottery tickets, but to have a chat. They are part of the fabric of local social life, which is good, healthy and sound. Hon. Members on both sides of the House should welcome that.

The hon. Member for Cathcart mentioned Camelot and its profits. Historically, Opposition Members have tended to find the very notion of profit somewhat offensive. Hon. Members shake their heads, but a large proportion of Opposition Members dislike the idea of profits. We are told that, apart from the 12 per cent. going in tax, upwards of 50 per cent. going in lottery prizes and 30 per cent. going to good causes, 5 per cent. goes to Camelot. Two thirds or three quarters of that goes on operating costs, such as printing tickets, paying commission to small shopkeepers and on the promotional side. The remaining quarter of the 5 per cent.—or one eightieth of the turnover—is profit.

I believe that Camelot is running the lottery efficiently. If it is not, the contract will not be renewed at the end of the seven years. If it is running it efficiently, which it shows every sign of doing so far, how can it be in conflict with the public interest for one eightieth of the turnover to go in profit to that company, especially when that is subject to corporation tax, which again is a tax yield to the Government? We should welcome the fact that such a tiny fraction of the entire turnover is going to an organisation that is probably running the lottery very efficiently indeed. We should accept the American doctrine that, "If it ain't bust, don't fix it".

I have met very few members of the general public who really mind about Camelot's profits. It is much more Labour Members and some of the media who are trying to create a news story out of it. Stories come and go. I remember that when the lottery was introduced last winter, there was a great deal in the media about the privacy of winners and whether they were entitled to keep their winnings private. There were some lapses of privacy and Labour Members were jumping up down in indignation about it. People have half forgotten that now; it is hardly ever referred to these days. I think that the same will happen with the story about Camelot profits.

The vast majority of those people who participate in the lottery are concerned mainly about their chances of getting a winning ticket and a large win. Admittedly, the churches have been saying that people have fantasies about winning but I believe that people get pleasure from those fantasies. I certainly do. Some people do win, so they are not fantasies

What other fantasies does the hon. Gentleman have?

They are my own. I am prepared to talk about my fantasies about winning the national lottery but not about any others.

The other thing that Labour Members seem to have got excited about is distribution. Another look needs to be taken at the way in which the charities section is working. I rather agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who thought that more of the charities money ought to go to the great, established charities and less to small charities. There are about 1 million charities in the country. I happen to be a trustee of three small ones. They go on and on and seldom get wound up. A lot of them are much better than others.

I remember that some years ago, I was asked by a friend to subscribe to a charity for the deaf. I sent a small amount to it but the charity was unwise enough to send me a copy of its annual report, which I happened to look through and saw that 55 per cent. was spent on administrative costs and only 45 per cent. on the deaf. So I stopped sending it money and sent a small sum the following year to something else instead.

It is a fact of life that not all charities are anywhere near equally efficient; they go up and down like other forms of enterprise and activity. Not all charities are equally meritorious. I hope that the National Lottery Charities Board, in dealing with lottery money, will be critical to the point of ruthlessness in following up the grants that it gives to make sure that they are well spent.

I warmly welcome the sums that have been provided for the arts. The so-called flagship arts bodies receive money because they affect the general standards of the arts. Standards percolate down from the great arts bodies—the great opera houses, orchestras, ballets, the National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company. That being so, one must expect funding for the live arts to be concentrated in the large centres of population because, almost by definition, performances in theatres, concert halls or opera houses have to be before a large number of people. Therefore people have to be bunched under the roof where the performances take place. Those grants are bound to be centred on large cities. If people do not live in cities or towns they will have to make a journey to go to such performances. People should expect that; it is entirely reasonable. Grants to other sections, such as charities, sports and heritage, can be spread geographically around the country more evenly than grants for the larger arts can be.

I hope the lottery goes from strength to strength. It is a tremendous feather in the cap of the Government to have brought it in. It is a brilliant national achievement. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mossley Hill would not come off the fence and tell us whether he was in favour of it or whether his party was in favour of it because I think that the public are entitled to know. It seemed as if he was, on balance, rather against it. I hope that the whole House will vote with the Government tonight and make sure that the lottery goes on.

6.44 pm

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) is a gifted parliamentarian and a highly intelligent man. I therefore find it difficult to believe that he cannot follow the point of view of some of us that there is something inherently wrong about the Government—the state—encouraging and organising gambling. I cannot believe that he does not understand the difference between that and private citizens choosing of their own volition to have a flutter on a horse or the football pools.

The argument that the state's involvement is justified by the ebullient tax yield that results is extraordinary. Even the most rapacious free marketeers among Conservative Members would not argue that the state should encourage or organise the smoking of cigarettes or the drinking of alcohol on the basis that large sums of tax would thereby be yielded to the Exchequer. Whether or not they accept that argument, it is incumbent on Conservative Members to acknowledge that there are a considerable number of people, and I am one, who are distinctly uneasy about the state encouraging gambling, just as we would be about the state encouraging smoking or drinking.

It is a measure of what the Tory party has become, and of its garagiste mentality, that we heard earlier—not from the hon. Member for Twickenham, for no musician as distinguished as he could be called a garagiste—two Conservative Members sneering at the churches' views on gambling and the misery that it causes to a significant number of people. I thought that that was telling. The Conservative party should know that there are a significant number of people who agree with the churches' expression of unease, to put it no higher, on the issue.

I have listened to speakers on both sides of the House and been amazed at the poverty of the social lives of some hon. Members. Perhaps I have a much more exciting life than many hon. Members. I see that Conservative Members seem to agree with that. The idea that one could spend one's Saturday evening huddled around a television set getting a buzz from watching one of the most asinine, banal television programmes ever is ridiculous.

I watched the first programme and wrote about it. It was possibly the most ghastly televisual experience that I have had. The idea that one would stay in on a Saturday night—instead, perhaps, of going to the theatre—to discover whether, on a 14 million to 1 chance, one had become rich seems extraordinary.

The Minister suggested that sad little newsagents, with their boards outside, had taken the place of the local pub or hostelry as a focal point of community involvement. How anyone could compare sitting with friends in a pub in a warm, communal atmosphere, enjoying a Saturday night, with standing in the corner of a newsagents store filling in numbers and crossing one's fingers in the hope of becoming rich as a result is beyond me. I am sorry to say that that shows the poverty of imagination of many hon. Members.

The hon. Member for Twickenham confessed to having fantasies about winning the lottery. My fantasies are a lot more enjoyable and colourful than that. I can only sympathise with anyone whose life has begun to revolve around this rather sad little gambling addiction that is growing in the country. That is my essential point. I do not believe that gambling is fun. The fact that many people do it does not mean that it is fun.

People gamble for two reasons. They gamble to try to escape from desperate financial circumstances at a stroke, so that in one bound they may be free. If I may briefly make a party political point, there have been far more people like that over the past 16 or 17 years. They also gamble out of greed—the greed fostered by the philosophy of the Conservative party during those years, which involves knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. It is the "get rich quick" mentality that equates human happiness with the acquisition of pound notes and other material things.

Conservative Members sneered at the possibility that people who became rich from gambling might eventually become miserable, but a considerable body of evidence, from Viv Nicholson—as in "spend, spend, spend"—onwards suggests that those whose lives revolve around the wish, the hope, the prayer, the fantasy that they will become rich are likely to be disappointed when they do become rich, and will be no happier as a result.

What the hon. Gentleman says may well be true, but surely it is a matter of personal decision. Let the people choose whether to do it.

That is a legitimate point. I am not arguing for the abolition of the lottery; I voted against it and would do so again, but I must accept that it is here. If it were to be done, `twere better that it be done well. The hon. Gentleman, however, has missed my essential point. He has spoken of the freedom of the individual, but there is a profound difference between people choosing to have a flutter and the state actively encouraging and organising gambling.

If, as I contend, gambling is a drug, the scratchcard could be described as the crack cocaine of the lottery business. Forty per cent. of the lottery yield comes from the card. Notwithstanding some of the statistics that were bandied about earlier, which I consider questionable, anecdotal evidence—backed up by many who have written about the subject—suggests that the scratchcard is bought by the poorest and most desperate people who engage in gambling. A good deal of evidence tells us that the poorest newsagents on the poorest housing estates in the poorest cities draw a huge proportion of their weekly take from the proceeds of scratchcards sold to the poorest people.

I confess that I do not know when the scratchcard provisions were passed by the House. I should, but I do not. They may have been part of the original Bill. In any event, I feel that the House should have paid more attention to the issue at the time, and should pay attention to it even at this late stage.

I am enjoying my hon. Friend's speech, although I do not agree with part of his main premise. I am, however, inclined to agree with what he says about the scratchcard—not merely on the basis of anecdotal evidence. Scratchcards are normally purchased when people visit the newsagent or grocer, and the fact is that people visit the grocer more often when their incomes decrease. People who are buying small amounts every day are much more liable to buy the card every day, paying for it out of an income that is already low, than those who buy their groceries at the end of the week or month. To that extent, the scratchcard is a separate issue from the national lottery.

As always, my hon. Friend has made a good point—better, I suspect, than I was making it myself. The scratchcard is indeed a separate issue, and I hope that the Government will listen to those who hold that view.

The scratchcard has, to a large extent, become a tax on the poor. Others have spoken of the use to which the "good causes" money is being put. It is easy to argue that the tax on the poor constituted by the daily purchase of a scratchcard by a poor person on a poor estate from a small newsagent in a poor city helps the contribution to, for instance, the Churchill papers and the Royal Opera house; but such a redistribution of wealth from the poor to the much better heeled should make even Conservative Members sit up and take notice. I believe that the "crack cocaine" effect of the scratchcard—a quick hit, and the hope of an escape from what are probably dismal personal circumstances—marks a profound coarsening and brutalising of our national life.

As I have said, there is no going back; we are not going to abolish the lottery. I therefore think it important for people to argue constructively—as all hon. Members have today—about possible changes to the regime. I see no contradiction in that. It was suggested earlier that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) had contradicted himself by arguing about the distribution of proceeds, but I consider that a utopian point of view. I was against the lottery, but I think that I am entitled to have views about how the money is distributed.

The distribution of that money is now a matter of national debate. The amounts involved are badly skewed. I cannot imagine how a jackpot of £1 million is not enough for anyone: I do not believe that anyone needs more than £1 million to enjoy even my life style—although some Conservative Members have gone through their millions. A cap of £1 million on the top prize would be a popular move. For those of a gambling bent, £1 million would be a prize well worth winning; I do not think that people would stop buying lottery tickets because they could no longer win £7 million or £8 million.

Some would argue that the balance should be redistributed among smaller prizewinners, but I do not agree. Much more should be given to the charities that have suffered. There is much statistical evidence to prove that the total yield of charitable giving has fallen by £300 million. The reason for that is obvious. First, people have less spare cash to give, because they are spending it on the lottery; secondly, they have been seduced into believing that by buying lottery tickets they are discharging their charitable responsibilities.

Does my hon. Friend think it appropriate for him to comment on how the funds are to be distributed? He will merely express his own feelings. Would it not be far better to let people who are spending their own money decide where that money is to go?

If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) accepts his hon. Friend's suggestion, Glasgow may not receive so many lottery grants.

There are many lottery grants in Glasgow—but not as many as there are in London, and not as many as were given to a single member of the Conservative party who, perhaps judiciously, is not present this evening. I do not consider the hon. Gentleman's intervention a serious one, and I do not consider myself to be disqualified from expressing an opinion about how the lottery—if we are to have it—should be organised.

I believe that far more of the total take should be given to charities. There is widespread agreement about that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), I do not think that the Government have any real right to take a tax yield from the proceeds: that strikes me as a contradiction in their position, especially as they are likely to use that yield to give tax cuts to rich people—as they have for the past 17 years—in a vulgar attempt to win votes and hold seats in the general election.

Do the Government have the right to take a tax cut from the proceeds of football pools?

They obviously do. I have already argued the difference, in principle, that exists between gambling per se and state-organised and state-encouraged gambling. However, I shall move on, because I have already detained the House, to some quick arguments.

I do not believe the Government should take a tax yield. The prizes should be capped at £1 million and the money should be given to the charities.

Obviously, there is something wrong with the decisions that are being made about the distribution of the money for good causes. I hope that hon. Members accept that I am by no means a Philistine, but I really do not think that Conservative Members have fully comprehended the national outrage at the many millions of pounds going to rarefied institutions in London which they will never travel to visit, whose portals they cannot afford to enter and which, in any case, often exude an ambience that they feel excludes them. Conservative Members are making a mistake if they do not comprehend people's feelings about that.

It is an extraordinary notion that Eton college can be described as a good cause worthy of the distribution of good cause money.

I shall close on a subject that I mentioned earlier. Most people are astounded by the very idea that £12 million should be given to an hon. Member of the House for papers. Most people in the country believed that they owned those papers already. There is also an overwhelming belief that the person whose papers they were, the most distinguished parliamentarian ever to sit in this building, is probably turning in his grave at the idea that his less distinguished grandson might have made off with such a bonanza.

The argument that the hon. Gentleman has just made emphasises his misunderstanding, not only of the national lottery but of the country's history. If there is one person who would be absolutely delighted that his own writings were making some money for his family, it is the former Member for Woodford, Winston Churchill. He spent his entire life scraping together his living by writing. He would have been delighted that his family had made something out of it at the end of it. There is no doubt that his family had the right to the copyright of those papers, and that they were entitled to sell them to the highest bidder.

I have a very much higher opinion of the late Winston Churchill than does the hon. Gentleman. He was a man who spent his entire life working to earn his own living and certainly did not sit back, haggling over the papers of a grandfather in order to make off with the riches. Perhaps the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) is not in his place tonight because he is cruising in the Caribbean, or elsewhere, on the public money that was given to him for those papers.

To some extent that is a sidetrack, except that I should say that, despite what Conservative Members say, in their self-congratulatory back slapping this evening over what a great success this has all been, there is national unease about the notion in the first place, there is much greater national unease about the distribution of the cake and there is a great deal of unease—I believe in the House as well as in the country—about the way in which the lottery will go from here. I hope that Ministers and the Government will take note of many of the suggestions that have been made this evening.

7.3 pm

May I begin by setting the record straight? Eton college was not a recipient of an award. It was a partner in a scheme to build an athletics track on land donated by the college. The main beneficiaries of the award that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) mentioned are Windsor, Slough and Eton Athletics club and members of the local community, including disabled people and children's voluntary groups. It is important to set the record straight.

The hon. Member for Hillhead referred to the national lottery as a "sad little" enterprise. I believe that I am right in saying that he comes from Glasgow. I wonder whether the Young Men's Christian Association in Glasgow resents the sad little enterprise that has just awarded it £37,000. I wonder whether the East End Leisure Centre in Glasgow regards the lottery as a sad little enterprise when it has awarded it £280,000. Glasgow Academical Club has received £15,000, Glasgow Museums has received about £83,000, the university of Glasgow has received about £900,000 and the Glasgow Film Theatre has received more than £750,000.

Read your own speech.

I am correcting the hon. Gentleman's speech, in the pursuit of accuracy and information. Obviously he does not want his constituents to know what the national lottery is bringing to Glasgow, and they deserve to be told that he would have denied Glasgow the bounty that it is receiving.

Scotland,' with 8.9 per cent. of the country's population, has received about 15 per cent. of the grants awarded to date. In addition to all the munificence that I have mentioned—and I have mentioned only a fraction of what is going to Glasgow for the arts, sports and heritage—there has been about £17.5 million from the charities board.

I am delighted to be making what will be quite a brief contribution to tonight's debate to salute the outstanding success of Britain's national lottery. Unlike my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), I was a little disappointed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). I felt that it was uncharacteristically sour and grudging. He gave the impression of having had a disappointing week, which surprised me because I should have thought that to be invited to speak on heritage matters is to have won the first prize in the lottery of life.

I certainly know that that is how my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State feels. She must be feeling good, not only because she is now in harness with the Minister of State, one of the finest members of any Government in the history of parliamentary democracy— [Interruption.]—there are times when nothing but hyperbole will do—but because she presides over what is a national and international triumph.

The national lottery provides an unprecedented boost to the quality of life in the United Kingdom and generates wonderful new funding for important good causes. Greatly in excess of £1 billion has been raised for those good causes in the lottery's first year.

It is the most efficient lottery in the world. No other lottery has raised so much for so many good causes from start-up in such a short time. That is a national success but, as always, all that Opposition Members can do is carp, complain and talk the nation down.

Heaven forfend; I would never do anything like that.

Has the hon. Gentleman any idea why that should be so? The lottery is very much like other lotteries throughout the world. Why have we become so obsessed by the lottery? What does it tell us about the people of the country?

It tells us that they enjoy a good flutter and enjoy supporting good causes. It tells how well the national lottery has been managed and how successful it is. The distributing organisations have already made about 2,111 awards to the five good causes, totalling hundreds of millions of pounds. All we have heard today is carping about the way in which those distributor organisations have undertaken their work.

Those organisations have done rather a good job under trying circumstances and under close and critical scrutiny from the press. Believe it or not, the members of the distributing bodies are not paid. They are volunteers, some of whom receive expenses. They act out of the goodness of their heart to ensure that money is spread fairly across the country and is seen to support worthwhile causes. That is good news.

Following Opposition Members' carping criticism of those volunteers, I marvel that anyone is prepared to give public service in this country. Their criticism is very disappointing.

Every area in the United Kingdom has benefited from the lottery. Scotland, as I mentioned a moment ago, with 8.9 per cent. of the population has received nearly 15 per cent. of the awards.

The hon. Gentleman has said that already.

Indeed, because I can hardly believe it. Coming from the north-west, I am a little resentful. Wales, with 5 per cent. of the population, has received about 10 per cent. of the awards and Northern Ireland, with 2 per cent. of the population, has received more than 6.5 per cent. I welcome that, but I hope that in the fulness of time the distribution of awards will become more even—except in the north-west, which naturally deserves the most.

What about Essex?

Essex can look after itself.

More than 200 million individual prizes have been won—just think about that. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and other Opposition Members seemed to resent the idea of the big prizes. I have to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I like the idea. "Who wants to be millionaire?" I do. Candidly, I believe that I could cope. When I win the big prize, I shall send you a post card from Hawaii, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to inform you of how well I am coping. You may come out and give me counselling to ease me through the difficult transition from my current position.

The approach of the Liberal Democrats was wonderfully patronising and sanctimonious. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] They are out eating humble pie. "Oh," they say, "the little people cannot cope with those big prizes". I am reminded of the fact that I number among my many marvellous constituents His Grace the Duke of Westminster, who has in many instances won first prize in the lottery of life. He is a young man who seems able to cope very well with his great wealth, and he is very generous with it. Opposition Members appear to feel that the toffs can be allowed to manage their money, but the little people cannot. I must say that I resent that patronising approach.

My other constituents include the parents of the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I know these people, and many good things have come from Chester. That was why I backed the deputy leader so assiduously for the leadership of the Labour party and, given time, he may make it. When the party divides following the next election, the right hon. Gentleman may be able to run the rump. The point that I am trying to make is that Opposition Members would deny Mr. Prescott senior and Mrs. Prescott the opportunity to spend a large sum of money, while allowing my other constituent the Duke of Westminster to spend his money.

That attitude is patronising and sanctimonious, and it is not in the interests of the good causes. The roll-over means that if the main prize is not won in any given week, the prize is "rolled over" to make a significantly larger amount. The roll-over prize increases the number of lottery tickets sold by between 20 and 25 per cent. on average. Ultimately, with the roll-over and the bigger prizes, more money will be raised for the good causes. That is more good news, and it is no wonder that Opposition Members are so agin it.

The right hon. Member for Copeland made a number of charges and criticisms, and he clearly loathes the notion of profit. He cannot cope with success, but then he has not had the option this week. But it is sad and sorry, because the right hon. Gentleman is proposing a non-profit-making lottery. There were a couple of splutterings of policy from the Opposition—it has been a surprising debate in many ways—one of which was that Labour would make the lottery a non-profit-making operation. A less efficient lottery that raised less money for the good causes would be all right by the right hon. Gentleman, so long as it was non-profit-making.

I want the lottery to be a success, and I want it to raise money for the good causes. I think that a company that does well deserves its success and deserves its profit.

My hon. Friend and I served on the Committee that examined the National Lottery etc. Bill with other hon. Members present in the Chamber. He will recall that we went into great detail on the profitability of the company operating the lottery. Looking around the world—as the Department of National Heritage did—we saw that non-profitable or charitable lotteries simply did not work. People did not buy the tickets and there were no beneficiaries.

My hon. Friend speaks true from his experience.

The National Audit Office endorsed Camelot's selection, and considered it to be the operator that would retain the least in costs and would provide the most for the good causes. A recently published report by Oflot—the independent regulator—confirmed that the lottery is well run. The amount of revenue retained by Camelot to cover operating costs and profits—5 per cent. of gross revenue over a seven-year period—was the lowest of the eight applicants for the section 5 licence.

Camelot's application maximised the return for the good causes and, of course, as revenue rises, so does the percentage that goes to the good causes. To be fair, Camelot has also invested heavily in the lottery. It installed 10,000 retail terminals for the launch at operational centres in Rickmansworth and Aintree, and the company recruited 300 staff. The lottery is good news, and it deserves success. Long may it flourish.

The right hon. Member for Copeland expressed a lot of concern about charities, and he was right to do so, but research shows that charities increase their incomes when lotteries are in operation. An independent report by a group of consultants showed that most Irish charities have increased their incomes by around 19 per cent. in real terms since the inception of the Irish lottery, while the top 20 charities increased their incomes by 30 per cent. in real terms. Inevitably, the charities market is like any other market—it will change, develop and respond to new products.

A few years ago, fundraising through television began with events such as Live Aid, and charities thought that those events would do them infinite damage. But that did not prove to be so. As the charity world evolves, people will respond to the different challenges that face them. It is too early to make a realistic assessment of the effect of the national lottery on charities, but I am pleased that the Home Office intends to monitor the matter.

Recent research conducted by MORI for the Comic Relief charity showed that only 2 per cent. of those polled claimed to have reduced their charitable donations because of the national lottery. Most people know that when they buy a lottery ticket, they are having an enjoyable flutter while helping some worthwhile causes. Most people I know who give seriously to charity continue to do so, and it is a voluntary endeavour. Some people claim to have increased their donations since the advent of the lottery. That does not surprise me, because the oxygen of publicity that the good causes have been given will have increased public awareness of what they are doing and of the contributions they make to the infrastructure of the United Kingdom.

One or two hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), pointed out that a number of the caring charities—notably Cancer Research and the Red Cross—reported a substantial increase in income since the national lottery was launched.

This morning, we debated the contribution of volunteers to our society. I am pleased at the number of voluntary organisations that will benefit directly from the lottery—a lottery that Opposition Members said they would again vote against if they were given the opportunity. Opposition Front Benchers have carped at, criticised and poured cold water on the lottery, but a wonderful range of volunteer organisations in my part of the world have benefited from it. Age Concern is one of those, and has received a number of impressive grants totalling more than £100,000. Allerdale Disability Association received more than £44,000, Victim Support received £44,000, the citizens advice bureau received almost £100,000, and Campus Children's Holidays, a parents' support group, and Crewe Womens Aid received assistance also. That is very good news.

Yes, but they are people in the hon. Gentleman's area and not in mine.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could have a job share arrangement and I could come and help him out. Perhaps the good news in Chester—the epicentre of all that is best in this country—could be sprinkled about in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, wherever that may be. I am sure that it is quite nice in its own way.

I shall list some recipient organisations, not simply because I want to celebrate the lottery, but because I want it known that, contrary to what we read in the press or what we hear from the rumour machine, worthwhile causes are being supported in the north-west. Liverpool Mencap has received £146,256—the hon. Member for Mossley Hill did not mention that—and the Liverpool Voluntary Society for the Blind received some £24,000. The list is impressive, but I shall not detain the House by continuing it tonight. A couple of million pounds has been allocated to the north-west: good money has gone to good causes and this great lottery has made it all possible.

The lottery aimed to provide additional investment in the nation's cultural, sporting, heritage and charitable infrastructure—and it is doing exactly that. I believe that in future we shall want to find ways of developing the lottery in order to achieve even broader aims. The Sports Council has explored interesting ways of using lottery funds to encourage excellence in sport.

I am reminded of the triumph of the Minister of State and the Prime Minister in releasing the publication entitled "Sport—Raising the Game". That will give British sport its biggest boost for decades. It sets out the broader framework for Government policy on sport and emphasises the ways in which we can maximise sporting opportunities for young people within and outside formal education. It also proposes the establishment of a British academy of sport for our top athletes, which would be funded by the national lottery.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will use that initiative as a model to be explored in the arts field as well. Just as our country's sporting infrastructure comprises our sports men and women as well as our sporting facilities, our cultural infrastructure comprises not only the range of theatres, opera houses and venues for ballet and the enjoyment of the arts, but also the artists themselves.

We must develop excellence in our young dancers, actors and musicians. There is no doubt that, if we wish to remain world competitive in the artistic sphere, we must give every opportunity to the brilliant young talent in this country. I look forward to exploring all sorts of initiatives, perhaps including the establishment of endowment funds using lottery money. Such funds could be developed over a number of years, and it is only one idea that I hope that the Secretary of State and her Minister will consider.

I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State give the lie to the claim that libraries are ineligible for lottery funds. It is interesting how that sort of rumour escapes into the ether and is believed by our constituents. I am a library enthusiast and, as such, I am among that half of the population who use libraries. Consumer surveys consistently show them to be among the most popular of all public services. United Kingdom public libraries issue more than 550 million books each year—that is almost 10 for every man, woman and child. It is estimated that 24 million men and women of all ages and backgrounds use public libraries each year.

The Department is undertaking a comprehensive review of the future role of public libraries in meeting community needs and in responding to new, exciting technological developments. That could have implications for the national lottery. I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State make such a firm commitment to the principle of a free core library service. That is very important, because our literary heritage is a vital component of our cultural heritage.

The national lottery is simply a triumph. It has enormous potential to assist good causes in my constituency, such as playing fields, sports clubs and youth groups. I am very excited when I think about what the Gateway theatre, the Chester in concert project and what our great cathedral may receive. Tonight I do not simply decry the whingeing, carping, negative and disappointing approach adopted by Opposition Members: I celebrate the success of our lottery and the success of the good causes. I also celebrate the success of the Minister of State.

Stop crawling, for goodness sake. It is making me sick.

I will not. I celebrate also the sensational success of the Secretary of State. We have such good news that we cannot resist the temptation to celebrate; we are happy.

7.26 pm

The contribution by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) was outrageous because of the way in which he addressed the issues that genuinely concern many of our constituents. Most Labour Members do not wish to condemn the national lottery: we simply want to review the working of the lottery in the light of experience. That is what the Labour party motion says.

We accept that the national lottery is established. We can understand why Conservative Members wish to shout from the rooftops about having one successful policy in 16 years—what a record. The stated objective of the national lottery is to benefit every man, woman and child in Britain by creating funds for good causes. The heart of the question today is whether the lottery is meeting its objective. Based on the evidence that has been presented in today's informed debate, I maintain that it is not.

Gameshow Government has been with us for many years. "Competition" is a key word in Tory ideology. Competitions in local government, such as city challenge and compulsory tendering procedures, have created winners and losers. Winning and losing should not form the basis of policies to improve the decaying structures and framework of our society. If something is in need of repair, it must be mended before it is damaged permanently—and the lottery is in urgent need of repair.

Our nation has always enjoyed a flutter. That is evident on big sporting occasions, such as the running of the Derby and the grand national, and nearly everyone has a dream of winning the pools. People will always cling to the dream of winning the big prize, so it does not surprise me that the lottery has taken off on that basis. But is it really in our national interest to develop a culture that relies on the "big win"?

In a letter to me dated 30 March, the sports Minister said that the Government believe that the national lottery is a harmless form of entertainment at the softest end of the gambling spectrum. Like other hon. Members, I am concerned that those people who buy weekly lottery tickets are now being encouraged to buy instant scratchcards also. The Home Office has described scratchcards as "hard gambling" because they allow people to chase their losses on the spot. We must pay attention and take great care to ensure that the vulnerable are not exploited. I think that we may live to regret the decision to increase the number of scratchcard licences.

I have often tried to find out where spending on weekly lottery tickets is concentrated on a geographical basis. I believe that in areas such as my constituency, people who cannot afford it are buying those tickets. They do it in the futile hope that somehow., miraculously, they will become winners. I am told that the figures are not available in detail because of commercial considerations.

I agree with the Council of Churches that there should be a gambling research centre to look at gambling trends and the impact of gambling on community life. Some 16 years of individualism has left its mark on our society. The get-rich-quick philosophy underlies the reality of the world in which people have to live and the Government cannot and should not be allowed to let the lottery develop in isolation. It has an effect on all aspects of community life.

Nobody forecast that the lottery would have been so financially successful. The profits alone are in real need of greater scrutiny. As we have heard, 30 million players take part in the lottery each week and there is an average spend of £2 a week on scratchcards. That has produced for Camelot profits of more than £300 million on an investment of only £50 million in the first year. That again shows how the regulators have got it wrong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) spoke about computer terminals. The operators told Oflot that, as part of the operation, 24,300 terminals would have to be in by the end of 1996. Camelot put them in within months of being awarded the contract. Profit should be related not to turnover but to the capital that is employed, because that is what is meant by risk.

The Government made a clear statement when they chose to award the contract to Camelot. Britain is the only country in Europe to have a private lottery run for profit and one that links profit to turnover as opposed to profit to capital employed. The lottery is a licence to print money. An efficient non-profit-making operator distributor would have raised more money for good causes. We have heard how charities have been affected by the lottery and, as the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said, it would have been more sensible to compensate at local and national level those charities which could easily prove that they have been financially affected by the lottery. That would be fair and reasonable.

As the House has heard, many charities contribute effectively to the lives of our communities and they should not have to apply through a bidding process that means that they have to be re-evaluated. That is an insult to many of our leading charities. The charities board which distributes lottery funds has an advantage over the other four boards. It has the opportunity to consider capital and revenue projects and does not require matching funding. However, the disadvantage of all the boards is that there is no overall strategy for co-ordinating bids. There is no discussion: each board welcomes individual bids, each has its own application form and there is no requirement for local discussions with bodies such as local authorities on matters such as planning or community issues.

Unnecessary bureaucracy is developing in the analysis of the bids. That is regrettable because it means that money is not going where it should go. The Sports Council is presently considering the siting of a new national stadium. Bids were invited and came in from many areas, including Bradford. I understand that the rules of the game have been changed because those bodies have no accountability to Parliament or to anybody else. There have been regional variations in distribution which outrageously favour the south, to the detriment of the north.

There is no point in reading out lists of grants that have been received. While it is good in itself that individual bodies have received the grants, that must be seen not in isolation but in the context of what is available overall.

In my area of Bradford, we receive from the Arts Council board 33p per head compared with £2.66 nationally. That is grossly unfair and the public have been rightly annoyed by the sizeable and extreme grants that have been given to projects from which the majority of people do not always benefit. We have heard about the outrageous £14 million for the Churchill papers and the £55 million for the Royal Opera House. Such grants have incited people to oppose some of the happenings within the lottery.

Everybody wants the dispersal of funds from the lottery to be equitable and to be prioritised to meet real social need. In an area such as mine, which has high unemployment and social need, people want a fair distribution and do not want making bids left to those who know how to go round the circuit. If the boards are to continue, they must look at what is needed in particular areas and do so on a structured basis. It cannot be left to a system under which the regular winners continue to win and the losers continue to lose.

The lottery has been going for several months and we must try to look at it as it proceeds. When concerns are highlighted, we must do something about them and not merely review matters in seven years, at the end of the contract. [Interruption.] We are discussing the contract that has been given to Camelot and the problems surrounding that, and also the way in which the boards distribute the funds. Bids from target-based areas should be considered. The Department of the Environment has an urban deprivation index. Perhaps some of those areas included in that should bid for lottery funds in the short term.

There needs to be an overall strategy, a district and a regional approach to the allocation of funds, and that should involve all agencies, both public and private, to make sure that the money is used efficiently. The list of good causes should include medical research. Many people feel that it is underfunded and that we need to try to find new ways to benefit the whole of society. The lottery could be used for that.

The lottery has had a dramatic impact on people's lives. In the light of the number of people who are prepared to play the game, it is here to stay. The money should be used wisely but the Government have not done so. Instead, they have left the lottery to run its own course without the accountability and sensibility that are needed to make sure that we address the issues of concern in society. Many people are playing the lottery to realise the dream of getting out of their everyday mundane problems, but the odds that are stacked against them are 14 million to one and the reality is that most people will never win such money.

The lottery has had an effect on the lives of people within the betting and gaming industry. The Henley study on bookmaking has shown that profits have fallen. The Government are against anti-competitive practices but they are protecting the lottery. We are told that the lottery has been very successful but perhaps we should look at the number of jobs that have been lost in the betting and gaming industry. Let us have a level playing field for those who compete with the lottery. It is important for the House to look at what is happening to national institutions, which is what the lottery has become. We must make sure that its administration and development are in line with the principle that everybody in the country benefits from it, and not just a few.

7.37 pm

I suppose that the action of which I am most proud in my twenty-one and a half years of selfless service in the House, to my constituents, my party and the country was my rejection of the pleading of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor to use my good fortune in the private Members' ballot in 1992 to present the Bills of Lading and Carriage of Goods (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Instead, I presented the National Lottery Bill, on 17 January 1992. After the general election, it was followed by the Government's Bill, which established the national lottery. So, perhaps I may be permitted to deliver a simple message. It is, "For goodness sake stop knocking the national lottery."

The lottery was long overdue. Britain was the last of 117 countries in the western world to introduce a lottery. We were to be the country before Albania, but it got in ahead of us and I am not sure that we are all that proud of being beaten by Albania, however wonderful a country it might appear to its inhabitants.

The lottery promised enormous advantages for British society, not just for the winners of millions of prizes and the people who became millionaires and multi-millionaires, not just for the good causes that have benefited—through that, jobs in the construction and other industries have been created—and have had to spend the money that had been given to them, and not just in taxation, which the Government received directly or indirectly as they reaped the benefit of corporation tax from Camelot and taxation from the distributors, many of which were to be kept in business by the lottery. There is also the advantage of the reduction in crime that will result from the building of more sports and arts centres for our children, who can be deflected from mischievous behaviour and the evil deeds that might otherwise overwhelm them if they are bored. Those were all massive advantages that we foresaw when the issue was debated in 1992.

All those advantages and more have come, or are coming, about. We said that 72 per cent. of the adult population would play the lottery each week, and the number is up to 68 per cent. after only 10 months. We said that it would raise £3 billion a year and it has raised £4 billion. We said that that would mean £1 billion a year for good causes, which will have received well over that figure by the end of this year.

In my Bill, I suggested a three-way division: one third for prizes, one third for good causes and one third for operating costs and the taxman, yet the Government improved on that break-down. As a result, the lottery is much more generous to prize winners and good causes, and taxation and operating costs have been kept well below the level that was originally envisaged.

I am delighted that my right hon. and hon. Friends, many of whom were dubious about the national lottery when my Bill was first published—I recall that I received no support in the Lobby from the Government on the Friday when the matter was discussed—came around and, like all converts, became super-enthusiastic, and with good reason because the results have shown how much their confidence has been justified.

When the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill was presented, did he not have all-party support and did not a number of Labour Members enthusiastically support his Bill?

There were indeed, and I was about to express my sadness that what had once been an all-party occasion has seemingly, this afternoon and this evening, shown divisions between the parties. That is bad but inevitable; I can understand it. Opposition Members cannot bear the fact that a Conservative Government have chosen something that is popular and successful with the British public. It must niggle deep in the gut of Opposition Members that the Conservative party should have chosen to introduce the lottery. I remember them saying that if the Government did not support my Bill the Labour party would bring in a national lottery in due course. Having listened to the speeches this afternoon, I think that it would have been difficult for it to have maintained a majority on such a measure, unless the whining and the whingeing that we have heard was caused just by bitterness because the Conservative party had introduced the lottery and were not a result of the merit of the case.

This has therefore become the most successful lottery of all time, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has said, and that is mainly because it has been well marketed and brilliantly operated by Camelot. There can be no better example of how the profit incentive generates success, and of how the free enterprise capitalist society benefits the whole of the social fabric of a nation. We should be proud of its success. We should not whine and whinge about it in the British way, by which we always modestly disclaim all our achievements, however considerable they are.

I feel sorry for Opposition Members, who have a problem. They know that the lottery is a runaway success and that it is popular with the country and, as I have said, it must hurt them to see that success redounding to the Conservative Government. It is true that, when he presented his case, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) was struggling—although not as much as the Opposition Front-Bench Home Office spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) last Thursday. I do not make that sort of comparison—that really was struggling. The struggling today, however, involved a confusion between a feeling that this had been an outstanding success and that the Labour party had to make noises to discredit the Government's enthusiasm for the cause.

Of course I concede at once that there is a downside to the national lottery. As every cloud has a silver lining, so every golden cornucopia has some darker aspect. It is not popular with everyone. It is not popular with some Opposition Members or with the churches, which are ambivalent because, like the Labour party, they are caught on the horns of a dilemma that involves benefiting from the lottery and the appalling immorality of it all.

There are people who are jealous of Camelot's success so they decry its profit, and the people who have not so far benefited from the arts, sports, charities, heritage and the millennium output are impatient. Some charities have declined, and they are fearful, but we knew that that would happen, which was why the charities were part of the beneficiaries planned at all the stages. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) was wrong. My Bill, the White Paper and the Government's Bill provided for charities—we had long discussions about them.

One of the points that keeps being repeated is that some charities went to the Taoiseach in Eire and said that, since it had had its lottery, their income had fallen, and from that it was concluded that the lottery was bound to have an adverse effect on all charities. The answer to that was that the contribution to charities had fallen in Northern Ireland, where there was no state or national lottery, so that cannot have been the whole explanation. We have learnt today and over the past month that the position of a number of charities has improved and strengthened since we have had the national lottery, just as there have been some charities that have lost and are fearful.

Some individuals, it is true, have personal problems. We do not know whether that would have happened anyway, but there are obviously temptations in relation to the lottery and we must consider caringly those who may have fallen into misery and sadness as a result.

We in Burton—I cannot speak for everywhere else—have massive parking problems because of the lottery. When one is trying to buy one's ticket on a Friday or a Saturday, the cars are packed two and three to one side, which is a problem. All those problems, if one adds them up, whether they are personal or involve parking, fear, disappointment, jealousy or ambivalence, pale into insignificance beside the lottery's monumental success. Many of the fears that were originally uttered were unfounded and many of the potential benefits were underestimated.

I buy a weekly ticket in a newsagent in my constituency. There is always a queue for tickets. The people in that queue are always delighted to see me. The lottery has made people happier—perhaps they were happy before, and keeping it to themselves. People get fun out of the lottery, not just from watching the programme in the evening, but from putting their money in and even winning a tenner here or there.

How much does the hon. and learned Gentleman spend?

I put on a fiver a week. I have won eight times, with a total of £80. I suppose that I have invested £140 or £150 in the lottery, and I hope that one day I will be able to entertain the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for many years in the House, to a slap-up dinner as a result of the success of my lottery ticket—he can hold me to that. Perhaps I will be able to present the hon. Gentleman with some bottles of champagne in recognition of the support that he has always given. He could then stand up in the House and say that he was a champagne socialist.

I am not unhopeful about the success of the lottery. The newsagent from which I buy my ticket sells about £12,000 worth of lottery tickets a week. It means that its slice of the cake is £600 a week. I wonder how many small newsagents, corner shops and village shops have been able to keep going and remain profitable as a result of their distribution of lottery tickets. There must be tens of thousands of small businesses which would not exist without it. The small newsagents that I visit is located in the centre of urban Burton, which is where my working-class constituents live, and it has paid out £750,000 in prizes.

So far, we have not been such massive beneficiaries as Glasgow and other places. However, one of our parish cricket clubs was happy to receive £5,500 and this week the Burton Young Men's Christian Association received £80,000. Up the road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), which draws support from Burton on Trent, the Gresley band and male voice choir has received £30,000 over the past year. We have put in bids about which we are optimistic for the Burton arts centre in the Brewhouse as well as countless other good causes, including health research projects—I agree with what has been said by many other hon. Members on both sides of the House about that.

I have every expectation that such juvenile delinquents as there may be, sadly even in Burton, will be encouraged off the streets by the arts, sports and charitable groups whose improved facilities will undoubtedly bring benefits in the months and years ahead.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue, as did his predecessor, to remind all the lottery benefactor groups that one of the contributions that they can make to the welfare of our society is to help to reduce crime. Many youngsters in our society today are engaged in crime and we are looking for ways in which we can deter them. We should realise how the benefits from the lottery could help to deflect them from crime.

It is true that some things could be improved, that there are imbalances between regions and that there may be hitches, delays and distortions. It is true that there have been public relations failures and that, to date, there has not been sufficient concentration upon medical research. I hope that we will move towards providing some running-cost funding as well as capital funding. It is also true that I have been disappointed at not being able to see Burton town hall as the venue at which the lottery performance takes place on a Saturday night. I hope that those who read or listen to my speech will see how important I believe that that would be to my local area.

The lottery has been going for less than a year. It is only just getting started. One does not decide after the first 10 yd whether my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) has got into his stride to win the race. It is ridiculous for us to be critical of the lottery at this stage. We should not say that this charity or that charity has not succeeded or that a certain part of the country has done better than another. It is too soon. There is plenty of time for it to go right for everybody.

The Labour party was premature and misjudged in tabling this motion. It is ill-timed. It is important to get the public relations right because the lottery's popularity is an important generator of its money. If there are imbalances, distortions or things going wrong, they should be looked into in due course when the lottery has been given a chance.

I believe that the public should be given some say. I hope that the Select Committee on National Heritage will have a say. For goodness sake, let us not have any more quangos. I would have thought that both sides of the House would be united on that. I have no idea what Opposition Members were doing by suggesting that a quango should look into this.

Give the people's lottery a chance. Stop knocking it and stop knocking Camelot, which is a wealth and happiness creator. What the national lottery is achieving for the quality of life in this nation has been, and will continue to be, nothing short of phenomenal.

7.55 pm

The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) has told us about the fun he gets from the national lottery. I am sure that I am not alone in having noticed that, whenever the Secretary of State talks about the lottery, she tells us what a lot of fun it is, Today was no exception. In fact, even she excelled herself when she referred to the lottery as a dream machine. I do not know how the Secretary of State gets her fun, nor do I have access to the content of her dreams—and nor would I want to.

I have never bought a lottery ticket and I should like to assure the House that my life is not devoid of pleasure—far from it. I join my hon. Friend for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) in expressing wonder at the state we are in, when such a large proportion of the nation's social life is centred around the national lottery.

I worry about the fact that so many people in our country today no longer feel that they can get on in life by their own efforts. They feel that they have to look to the national lottery to escape from poverty or unemployment. It could be said that the tax that the Chancellor takes from the lottery is a tax on hope. At the risk of being accused of being a whinger or even a killjoy, I must say that I am worried that the national lottery has brought about a change in the way in which we view gambling, and that that will lead to more people becoming addicted to gambling.

I am not saying that somebody who has a flutter on the lottery or on the pools, or who gambles on horses, is likely to become a customer of Gamblers Anonymous. That is no more true than somebody who has a glass of wine, as has already been mentioned, becoming an alcoholic—or even, dare I say it, that somebody who experiments with pot is likely to become a heroin addict. Having said that, it is strange that Conservative Members and some others have a completely different attitude to those matters. I think that we can all agree that we would not wish to see activities of that sort promoted in such a widespread way, or by the state.

The right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said that lottery signs are almost replacing pub signs. One sees those signs not just on street corners but virtually everywhere one goes. As a result, there has been a sea change in our attitude to gambling. Previously, there was public policy against the stimulation of demand for gambling. It was something to be tolerated, but not encouraged. Gaming legislation provided a framework for that.

I would not argue that we should ban gambling or do away with the national lottery. The widespread promotion worries me, together with the relaxation of restrictions on other forms of gambling which is now occurring. Hon. Members are being bombarded with mail from the Bingo Association of Great Britain, the British Casino Association and the pools to relax restrictions on the promotion of their form of gambling. They refer to the process as modernising British gaming laws.

Far from modernising our laws, we would be taking a step backwards to anarchy. I hope that no one in this place would suggest that some of the activities that the organisations to which I have referred represent should be promoted in the same way as the national lottery with television advertising, but that is what is happening elsewhere. A relaxation of restrictions would make it likely that other forms of gambling would be advertised.

My main concern is scratchcards and the very nature of the type of gambling that ensues. I am worried also at the ease with which adolescents are buying scratchcards. A recent survey undertaken by a children's charity, Children's Express, revealed that 62 per cent. of stores visited by young people sold scratchcards to the under-16s, even to some in school uniforms.

A similar campaign carried out by my local Sunday newspaper, the Birmingham Sunday Mercury, showed that in Birmingham about a third of outlets were willing to sell scratchcards to children who looked under 16 years of age. These children are growing up with the belief that gambling is socially acceptable. The link with good causes reinforces that perception.

The accessibility of lottery tickets, especially scratchcards, is so wide that it is difficult to avoid them in most shops, including corner shops, newsagents and supermarkets. Scratchcards are being sold everywhere we go. Before the introduction of the national lottery, we spent about £1 million a week on scratchcards. We are now spending about £50 million a week on them. That is a massive amount of money on that form of gambling.

The distinction between scratchcards and the weekly national lottery must be emphasised. It is important that we take note of evidence that is accumulating about the addictive nature of the cards. I shall quote from an article written by Mark Griffiths, who is an expert on gambling, from Nottingham Trent university. It is useful to get information on the record. Mark Griffiths distinguishes between scratchcards as hard gaming, as opposed to soft forms of gambling such as the national lottery and football pools.

He states:

"Like fruit machines, scratch cards have a payout interval of a few seconds between the initial gamble and the winning payment. Three factors are inextricably linked with such a characteristic.

The first of these is the frequency of opportunities to gamble. Logistically, some gambling activities (e.g. the National Lottery or football pools) have a small event frequency—there is only one draw a week—making them soft forms of gambling. However, in the case of scratch cards there are few constraints on repeated gambling as limits are set only by how fast a person can scratch off the covering of the winning or losing symbols.

The frequency of playing, when linked with the two other factors—the result of the gamble and the actual time until winnings are received—exploit certain psychological principles of learning. This process, called operant conditioning, conditions habits by rewarding behaviour. Reinforcement occurs through presentation of a reward such as money. To produce high rates of response, those schedules which present rewards intermittently have been shown to be the most effective, and since scratch cards operate on such schedules it is not surprising that excessive gambling can occur."

We have read anecdotal evidence in newspapers of people, especially young people, spending large sums on scratchcards.

The paper continues:

"Promoters appear to acknowledge the need to pay out winnings as quickly as possible, thus indicating that receiving winnings is seen by the gaming industry to act as a reinforcement to winners to continue gambling. Rapid event frequency also means that the loss period is brief, with little time given over to financial considerations and, more importantly, winnings can be regambled almost immediately.

Another related aspect to operant conditioning is the psychology of the near miss, which can act as an intermediate reinforcer. A number of psychologists, including myself, have noted that near misses—that is failures that are close to being successful—appear to induce continued gambling and that some commercial gambling activities (particularly fruit machines and scratch card lotteries) are formulated to ensure a higher-than-chance frequency of near misses."

Mark Griffiths gives the example of the fruit machine-type paying-out line that is horizontally located in the middle of a three-by-three matrix. He states:

"When three winning symbols are displayed, the jackpot is won and thus reinforces play. However, a near miss—such as two winning symbols on the payline and the third one just above or below—is still strongly reinforcing at no extra expense to the machine's owner. Therefore the player is not constantly losing but constantly nearly winning."

With scratchcards, there is a 1:5.46 chance that a person will get his money back, whereas there is a 1:2.4 million chance of winning the £50,000 jackpot. Unfortunately, people tend to concentrate on the amount they think they will win, rather than on the chance that they might win.

When arguments about scratchcards were put to the Secretary of State this afternoon, she told hon. Members that they should take the matter up with the Director General of the National Lottery. It is outrageous that Ministers are constantly ducking their responsibilities for public policy by referring matters to quangos, such as how widespread should be the advertising of scratchcards and the type of game that should be permitted within the national lottery. Those matters should be determined by elected politicians. It worries me that the Government seem unwilling to take responsibility for such serious matters.

I am disappointed that we, the Opposition, have not taken up the issue. I am not entirely with the proposal for another quango. Decisions should be taken by those who are elected and publicly accountable. I wish that my right hon. and hon. Friends would join more forcefully me and others who have expressed great concern about the national lottery scratchcards. It may not be appropriate for the cards to be withdrawn completely, but it is appropriate that their sales should be restricted to licensed establishments. We should seriously consider restrictions on advertising of scratchcard gambling.

8.8 pm

I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I come to it from three different directions. I was vice-chairman of the Sports Council from 1986 to 1989, when, in sporting terms, the concept of a national lottery gathered considerable momentum. I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill that eventually, when enacted, produced the national lottery. I was chairman of a campaign group in Cornwall called Cornwall First, which set about the difficult task of trying to gain for the county the headquarters of the national lottery.

The national lottery is not a new concept. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) who reminded the House that Westminster bridge, the Cinque ports and, I think, the British museum, were all recipients from a prototype lottery. The concept is therefore not alien to this country.

The speed with which the current national lottery has gained public praise and acceptance, with a few exceptions, is a tribute to the way in which the House as a whole and the Standing Committee debated the National Lottery etc. Bill, and the issues raised by the many interested organisations which would be the future recipients of national lottery money. It is also a tribute to the way in which hon. Members with specific interests debated the distributing bodies.

As a competing athlete a few years ago, it was with an envious eye that I travelled abroad, in competition or training, and used facilities that other countries had built with the support of state or national lotteries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), a previous Minister for the Arts, said that he had visited Greece and met the then Minister for Culture, Melina Mercouri. She said that she had had no major funding problems since the Greek national lottery had been established. It was odd that, until Britain published the relevant legislation in 1992, we alone in western Europe did not have a recognisable national lottery.

The motion is a curious one. It stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his deputy. It appears that their concern is that lottery money should not be used to replace existing Government funding, and certainly not for the arts. That idea has already been knocked down.

The Department of National Heritage and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have made it perfectly clear that lottery money will not replace Government funding. Lottery money is new funding, and that will remain the case.

In a sense, I am disappointed that this debate is taking place. Although it is probably fair to say that we should at some stage in the future be discussing the national lottery—indeed, it is perfectly legitimate and laudable for the House to monitor with some regularity something that plays and will continue to play such a profound role in the lives of our constituents—it is a little premature to do so now. I hope that today's debate has not been instigated in a chase led by the tabloids.

I have recently read much about the lottery with which I disagree. At his party conference in Brighton, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) threw out two vague thoughts about the national lottery. In fairness, I would not describe them as policies, and nor would his colleagues.

The first idea was that an expiry date of the year 2000 should be given to Camelot or any other successful bidder. It is very unlikely that any company would have been prepared to make the necessary investment for a contract that would barely have seen it through three or four years. In the real world, that was not very likely. Colleagues have already said that the National Audit Office gave Camelot a pretty clean bill of health.

With hindsight, it is far too easy to say that the company that won the bid knew that it was likely to have a licence to print money. It was never going to be a precise science. If the result had been so copper-bottomed, and if the guarantees were so clear, why did the other bidders not make more competitive bids? When the National Audit Office examined the bids, two points emerged. First, it was clear that Camelot planned to keep back the smallest amount for operating costs. One could not run a low-cost supermarket on an operating margin of 5 per cent.—

You can at an Aldi supermarket.

I do not think so.

Secondly, Camelot was identified as providing the greatest level of benefits to sport, the arts, good causes and heritage. I have noted with great interest the recent comments of Richard Branson. It was clear from the National Audit Office's report that the Virgin organisation was not making a tighter bid in as far as operating costs went, and would certainly not have produced the same benefits as Camelot. I am not an apologist for Camelot—I have no links with the organisation—but we must be clear that Camelot underwent close scrutiny, and came through it pretty well.

We are not disputing whether Camelot set up the lottery to work efficiently—that was the National Audit Office's remit. We are concerned that Camelot knew that it would be able to set it up very much more quickly than it had said, and is now making excessive profits. The NAO is not interested in whether Camelot is making excessive profits.

My point is that Camelot will be producing its end-of-year accounts in a few weeks. Many Opposition Members have been saying that they are not anti-profit or anti-business, but, when Camelot announces its profits, I shall be interested to see whether Opposition Members still adopt that attitude. I rather fancy that they will not, but will use the results for political purposes. The point that I think the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is making is that Camelot will be making profits that it knew would be forthcoming, but I am not sure that that is so.

As chairman of the Cornwall First campaign, I sat down with every bidder to try to persuade them all to establish their headquarters in the county. I do not believe that any of them genuinely thought that the lottery was going to be the success that it has proved to be.

It is not a precise science; we are talking about human attitudes. With the best will in the world, I do not think that most of the bidders thought that they would be into the scene that the company that made the winning bid is now into. But I do not have any more insight into that than the hon. Member for Cathcart.

I also noted that, in his speech to the party conference, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield mentioned that it was not unreasonable to start directing or guiding some of the organisations responsible for distributing the funds on where the funds should be distributed. In fact, I was not quite sure whether he was suggesting that we should bypass those organisations entirely. Of course, that is the way in which many foreign-operated lotteries work.

I am a past vice-chairman of the Sports Council, and I happen to think that the Sports Council, for better rather than for worse, is by far the best organisation to distribute sports funding. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield might say that I would say that, but I do not want the' money to be handed straight over to some Government organisation, and then to witness the kind of wrangles that would occur across the Floor of the House on where that funding should go. I like the idea of arm's-length organisations making these decisions.

I have worked with the Sports Council, and I am not going to stand here and say that there were not areas of its administrative processes and cost centres which could not have been tightened up. But it would be very dangerous to start suggesting that expert organisations out there in the field—autonomous, independent—should in any way be held back in choosing where they deem it fit to place lottery money.

On the discussion about the areas in which funding should be allocated, I speak as somebody who has sat on grant assessments panels and had the difficult job of deciding between many competing bids in a sporting context. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House have had to try to distribute funds, and know that, effectively, one is looking down the barrel of a gun.

One can never satisfy everybody. There will always be arguments about—in sporting terms—whether the funds should go to participation or excellence, and we have heard the same points applied to the arts in this debate. There is an argument that holds for the arts and sport. It is my experience that the best way in which to bring about an increase in participation in any activity is to ensure not only that we fund participation, but that we are not afraid properly to fund the excellence; the shop window.

If the Lawn Tennis Association were given a straight choice between a Wimbledon winner—man or woman—from this country or £10 million or £20 million for some development programme at the grass roots, I think that I know what it would go for: the Wimbledon winner. We know, and the hon. Member for Cathcart knows, the result of excelling so obviously in the shop window. One would not be able to get on a tennis court for the following 10 years for youngsters wanting to play tennis. It happened in Sweden and in Germany; it is a well-travelled line.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he not agree that, if we want not to be able to get on to a tennis court for 10 years, those tennis courts have to worth being on—they have to be good tennis courts? Not only that, but coaches have to be available to coach those people, and they have to be able to spot the excellence and know how to move those people on to the next stage, so that there is a gradual build-up of such people coming through in tennis. There is no point in having one tennis champion if we cannot follow up the success with a whole list of others.

The hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I hope to be able to move on to in a few moments.

Lest this becomes a debate confined to the healthy minority of athletes, may I speak on behalf of the slothful millions of Britain? The hon. Gentleman has discussed the allocation of resources with reference to two bodies—the state and the institutions, such as the Sports Council and so on. There is one other body, however, that should perhaps have some say: the consumers, the people who pay their money into the lottery.

Given the support of the Conservative party for consumer choice, is the hon. Member opposed in principle to some mechanism whereby those who pay their money into the national lottery could exhibit a general preference for the areas into which they would like the profits to go?

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I, like other Conservative Members, of course believe that the consumer has inevitably to be sovereign. That is the basis of much of the Conservative philosophy. But what is the reality of what the hon. Gentleman said? Would everybody who contributed to a national lottery ticket somehow be provided with a mechanism by which they could specify where part of their £2 would go? I just do not think that that is workable or pragmatic.

Under the current structure of organisations with experience in the field and a proven track record, whether in the charities, arts, sport or heritage, the consumer's best interest is protected. I would not go much further, other than to say that the mechanism in place is certainly the best that we can summon at present.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing of which we could be pretty sure is that consumers would not vote to limit prize money? Indeed, the danger would be that, if they had the choice, they would probably vote to divert more of the money away from good causes to increase prize money. The opinions of the consumer are not necessarily the best guide to what would be the best product, not only for the consumer but for the nation as a whole.

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am not sure that I am qualified to trespass quite that far into human attitudes. I not sure, either, that I would want to put that to the test in my constituency—his may be a little different.

I come to a point which has already been discussed. I am certainly not in the mood to bash the Church of England or any of the other church organisations which put their name to the sentiments expressed yesterday, but I would find the situation a little easier to comprehend if the churches had not already received £1 million of national lottery money. I would find it a little easier to comprehend had the churches not already submitted bids for between £17 million and £18 million of lottery money. I will pull back from saying that it is hypocritical, but only a little way back.

The churches have fallen into the trap into which many of the tabloids and—I have to say—some of the more learned leader writers have fallen: assuming that all discussions about the national lottery take place around Islington dinner tables. The reality is that the national lottery has been a huge success. It has profoundly changed the outlook, the ambitions and the realisations of organisations the length and breadth of the country.

Sport is no different from any other area of the voluntary sector. Hundreds of people are prepared to give up hundreds of hours of their spare time every year to support talent, grass roots and excellence in sport, as they are in the arts and a myriad of other activities.

We are incredibly lucky in Britain to be the inheritors of one of the most successful and soundly based voluntary sectors anywhere in the world. If it were removed, vast areas of activity in this country would be unrecognisable. The voluntary sector underpins sport. It is not unreasonable, when we consider the future of the national lottery, to look hard at the balance between capital and revenue spending.

The hon. Member for Cathcart made the point earlier, in a speech that I thought was sane, that if we are to support excellence, it is not just about bricks and mortar. It is about making sure that there are coaches out there who can inspire and coach to the very highest level. I think that we can, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will, examine the balance between capital and revenue. I am heartened that I think he is mindful of that, and will try to move towards some change.

As we enter a key period, as we do in any Olympic year, we have to recognise that we are sending a lot of competitors to Olympic games next year, for whom a little revenue funding would be helpful. The capital funding that is available from the national lottery moneys will make a massive difference—hon. Members should not kid themselves about that.

Yet the Linford Christies, Daley Thompsons, Steve Ovetts, Steve Crams and Tessa Sandersons are the product not of some happy sporting accident but of sensitive, long-term coaching. If we are to maintain the pre-eminent position that Britain has enjoyed for a long time in sport—I do not wish to intrude on Friday's debate—we need coaching of the highest level. That will inevitably come from some form of revenue funding.

I do not think that a decision has ever been made in the House that has more profoundly affected the life and the quality of life of so many people. It is interesting that those who criticise the national lottery and debate it on occasions at the most esoteric level are often those who have never worked in any of the organisations out there in sport and the arts, many of which live from hand to mouth. It is interesting to me that much of the debate has been concentrated on the mechanism, the distribution and profits, not the changes that lottery money has brought about.

Let me assure the House that hundreds of thousands of people out there do not share the current narrow perception of the national lottery. In my constituency, from art galleries through to sub-aqua clubs, people's dreams have—it sounds dreadfully clichéd—come true in the past few months and the past year. The contribution that the national lottery will make in future years is at a level that I did not fully comprehend a year or so ago, and few hon. Members on either side of the House were able to comprehend in the build-up to the legislation.

8.34 pm

I am very pleased to follow such a distinguished Olympian and fellow Chelsea supporter. We all know that the hon. Gentleman has no need to win the lottery. We must have so much gold stashed away in his cupboards that if he is ever short of a few bob he could just melt it down. He made, in his usual exceedingly thoughtful way, some excellent points. I look forward to hearing him again on Friday in the sports debate.

I should like to make a few comments about the lottery and, first, to make it clear that I entirely support the lottery. I have heard a lot of Conservative Members saying that we do not. I was one of the sponsors of the original private Member's Bill and I have supported the lottery both by my actions in the House and by my activities in purchasing lottery tickets. I want to win. I desperately want to win because, apart from anything else, it would mean that I could escape from having my bottom bored into rigidity by having to listen to another interminable speech by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth). I do not think that I would have any difficulty in adjusting to being filthy rich. After all, enough Tories have managed it. I see no reason why I could not do the same. It would be pina coladas all round.

I am with those who believe that there should not be an upper limit on the top prize. Who are we to say that people cannot manage that amount of money? Of course, if one won a great big bucket of money—as I have already said, I hope that I do—one would seek some decent financial advice. It is not a normal, everyday event suddenly to find that one has 17 million quid in the bank, but it is something that I am sure I could manage and I sure that most people could. I do not see why we should say that there should be an upper limit.

I should prefer to see the £10 prize scrapped. I have won a few tenners, but I do not go into the lottery to win a few tenners and nor do most people. We should do away with those prizes and have a few more middle-ranking prizes so that the large rollover could be kept, but far more substantial prizes could be available rather than handing 10 quids out. People do not go into the lottery to win a tenner.

I agree with my hon. Friends who have said—I have not heard any Conservative Members say this—that they do not like scratchcards. I am assured by those who followed the legislation far more closely than me that instants were included in the Bill. I must confess that they were slipped through and escaped my attention.

Scratchcards are different. They are not the national lottery. They seem to me just another way of milking the people who go into shops. After all, as several of my hon. Friends have said, the lottery is a weekly event. People do not go into the shop or outlet every day to buy yet another lottery ticket. The vast majority do it once a week. Every time people go into the newsagent's or grocer's, those scratchcards are there. I have watched people in my area go into a shop, buy a card, come out and, if they have won, go back and buy more cards. I have watched people in the Forest Gate area, which I know exceedingly well because I represent it and live in it, going backwards and forwards. Scratchcards are a curse and they were not part of the national lottery set-up. They show how greedy Camelot has become.

I have some criticisms of the national lottery. It is not the same as whingeing to want to see something improved. How can that be whingeing? The Secretary of State was asked—or, if she was not, she should have been—whether she would replicate exactly the set-up of the national lottery if she was designing it now. I do not believe that anyone would. I have heard even Conservative Members say that they would make adjustments and improvements. So when we criticise, we are not whingeing. We admit and accept that the lottery is a success. We supported it. But we can improve even on success. Therefore, the criticisms should not be dismissed as whingeing from embittered old Socialists on the Opposition Benches who cannot stand the possibility of success. Opportunity in electoral terms, of course, would be a fine thing for us.

There are two huge winners week in and week out. They do not need two fingers to come pointing in through their roof saying, "It's youhoo". They know that they will win every week. One is Camelot and the other is Her Majesty's Government. For Camelot, it must be like having Christmas every day of the year.

I refute absolutely that there was any risk involved. As we have heard said many times, the lottery really was a licence to print money. The matter was gone into carefully. Given the propensity of the British to gamble, there is no way that a national lottery would lose money, particularly given all the backing that would be available through the media, all the hype on the television and all the statutory support from the Government. It is, after all, a Government-sponsored lottery. Camelot knew that it could not lose. Unfortunately, the Government were not prepared to be rather more guarded in the setting up of the lottery.

Camelot misled the Director General of Oflot, Peter Davis. It said that it would make no profits until the fourth year of the lottery's operation. Camelot is either a fool or a liar. To suggest that means that it does not know what it is doing, except that it will make money. But it has made money hand over fist. In those four years, it is likely to make profits in the order of £300 million, from a £50 million investment in the first year. Instead of the Government congratulating themselves, they should be asking themselves where they went wrong on that point. How did Camelot pull the wool over their eyes so successfully? How come Camelot did not give accurate answers to Peter Davis at the time?

The Government have locked us into an absurd unfair arrangement with Camelot. The Secretary of State referred to the lottery as being a dream machine. For Camelot, it is certainly a money machine. I accuse the Government of failing to look after the interests of the consumer in giving Camelot the deal that they did.

I am with those who say that the lottery should be administered by a non-profit-making organisation. Most charities are supposed to be non-profit-making organisations. They bring the money in and they spend it. They need a certain amount for their administrative costs, but they are not described as profit-making organisations. When we say a non-profit-making organisation, we mean in terms of those operating and administering it. It would get its administrative costs, but it would not be able to bank millions of pounds obtained through the sale of tickets in areas such as mine.

If the hon. Gentleman was running a charity, would he never use a private fund raiser who might be taking a cut himself; never use a professional fund raiser in order to gain extra funds despite their being widely used now? Does he not understand that incentive is the key to success in fund raising for charities just as much as in any other sphere of life?

The answer to that, as the hon. Gentleman must know, is yes, of course, one would use professional fund raisers. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a question and wants to answer it as well. The Labour party, as far as I am aware, uses professional fund raisers. The point that needs to be made is that they have to go out and work for their money. Camelot was given it on a plate. That is the difference between using professional fund raisers and handing over a mulch cow to a professional organisation such as Camelot.

I have heard people say that they will wait to see what the profits are like. I give hon. Members a tip. Go out and buy shares in Cadbury Schweppes and De La Rue and the other companies involved in the Camelot consortium because the profits of those companies will receive a great boost when the money works its way through.

The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is making a note to make sure that he does.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is rich beyond the dreams of avarice, so he does not need to win large amounts of money. It is poor buggers like me who need to win large amounts of money, a point that I have already made to some effect.

The lottery should have been run by a non-profit-making set-up, whatever methods it used to inspire sales, although that has all been done for them. One need only consider the advertising that it gets on the Saturday draw. That is banal. I just want the numbers. I do not want all the twaddle beforehand with people bouncing around. People watch only to find out the numbers. If I want some cheap entertainment, there is plenty on television or in the House of Commons. All I want is to be given the numbers and to look at my ticket to see whether I have won the biggie. Unfortunately, as yet, I have not. In that respect, Richard Branson had a good idea and we should explore his proposals because that is the way for the lottery in future.

The other big winner, as we all know, are the Government. The Government receive 12 per cent.— about £400 million. The lottery was not supposed to be a fund-raising mechanism for the Government. That makes it simply another form of taxation. Why should people have to pay more taxes? They are already more taxed by the Government than they have ever been in recent years. In those circumstances, why give the Government another great big bucket of money? If one adds on to the Government's rake-off the additional money that they get from taxation on Camelot's profits—assuming Camelot ever gets round to paying any tax because as far as I can see corporation tax is paid only by idiots these days—one sees the lottery becoming nothing more than a tax-raising measure, and a regressive tax-raising measure, on behalf of the Government.

I come now to the distribution of the lottery money. That is decided by too many middle-class people, often hand picked by Ministers favouring their own pet interests. Who are those people? Why should they decide which organisations will be funded? There was a lot of anger about the £55 million that went to the Royal Opera house and the money that went to Sadler's Wells. I am not against them securing finance.

I was not much impressed by the former Minister for the Arts, the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton). There was that sob story about how he went round the Victoria and Albert museum and saw the roof leaking, and how he went to the Royal Opera house and saw the creaking scenery. What on earth was he supposed to be doing? He was the Minister. He should have been getting the money out of the Treasury in order to make the necessary improvements to the fabric of those wonderful buildings, whose legacy we have been living off for so long. Why wait for the national lottery to turn up? All he was doing was admitting that he was derelict in his duty.

rose—

Of course I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

As the former chairman of the Greater London council, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt remember that, despite the fact that the roof of the Victoria and Albert museum, a listed building, could be seen only from a helicopter, not from the street, first the GLC and, after its abolition, Kensington and Chelsea council and the Department of the Environment—so it was an all-party matter—all flatly refused to allow repairs to be carried out to the roof which would alter its appearance. Was that not ludicrous?

That was probably more to do with English Heritage or whatever conservation body was concerned at the time. The refusal of bodies such as the GLC or Kensington and Chelsea council to give any money to the museum for repairs to the roof was, I suspect, because it is a national institution, so national funds should have been provided for such work.

It is no good saying that the lottery has now galloped to the rescue of such institutions. Governments—not necessarily just Conservative Governments, although the hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that we have had rather more Conservative than Labour Governments during the past 15 years or so—have failed in terms of their responsibility to the fabric of those buildings that we have inherited. It is our responsibility to pass on those great institutions in a more enhanced state than that in which we inherited them. We were derelict in our duty, but I specifically name the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex who gave us that terrible heart-wrenching story about the buckets of water that he witnessed in the Victoria and Albert museum.

I am not opposed to the Royal Opera house or Sadler's Wells getting finance, but that money will do nothing further to improve access for my constituents. Even at the concessionary levels that the Royal Opera house or Sadler's Wells charge, people in my area—where many live on basic state pensions, are unemployed or students—simply could not afford to go there anyway. So, the money that they are raising is going into a building that, admittedly, needs to be repaired and should have been many years ago, but they will still not be able to enjoy the benefits.

That is the cruelty of the thing. It is not that Opposition Members are anti-opera or dance, but that we simply cannot get that access because people do not have the income to get it. That is why I would like institutions to be able to get direct revenue funding from the lottery, if it would provide access for the people I have just been describing.

Is not my hon. Friend, like me, concerned about the grant to the Royal Opera house, bearing in mind the fact that the party giving the grant—the Arts Council—is a part owner of it? I thought the principle was that the distribution bodies gave the money to independent bodies, not to themselves.

That is a moot point at this stage because the grant has been challenged on precisely that basis. It might become a matter for the courts to decide, if anyone wants to push it to that extent.

If money was to be given to the arts, how on earth could it have been disbursed, other than through the Arts Council? That is one of the problems. The charities board has been criticised for being slow to set up and to hand the money out, but it had to start from scratch. The Sports Council and the Arts Council were already in existence and had the mechanisms and vetting arrangements that enabled them to process applications. So it is a little unfair to criticise the charities side for being slower than the more established bodies.

The motion does so.

Perhaps so, but I do not care what the motion says. I did not draft it. This is my speech, which I did draft and, under the circumstances, that fact does not impress me, although I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), the spokesman for the Opposition, that I will be supporting him in the Lobby—I am nothing if not fodder.

Frankly, I object to money being raised in areas such as mine, where people are very poor and spend a higher proportion of their income on the lottery than the wealthy. They see that money going into areas from which they will not directly benefit—indeed, from which they will not benefit at all.

Someone asked why the lottery has been such a success. We are a nation of gamblers—that is undoubtedly so—but the fact is that people are desperate. I make a bit of a joke about it, but I am scratching quite a reasonable living and I probably earn far more as a Member of Parliament than the majority of people in my constituency. Given the area that I represent, where more than 20 per cent. are unemployed, I am lucky to have a job.

I know why people play the lottery. It is not necessarily—perhaps not at all—to give money to good causes, but because they are desperate to get out of the situation that they are in. Scratchcards play on that desperation, which is why I particularly oppose them.

One must consider carefully the way in which money is being spent in areas such as mine. When one turns a switch, the Secretary of State comes out with all the statistics. I once likened her to a dalek on Prozac—it is difficult to stop her when she is in mid-flow. She goes on about averages, which are a curse because, by definition, one cannot find out what is really going on. Ask people in a meeting whether they are on the average wage. It is funny, but one can never find anyone who is and that is the point about averages.

We must look into areas such as mine—I specify my area because I know it well—and find out how much of their disposable income people are spending. It must logically follow that people on low incomes spend a greater proportion on the lottery than those with large incomes. One does not need a PhD in statistics to work that one out. I hope that, if the Government will not do it themselves, they will at least get some of the agencies to gather the statistics objectively—usually more than the Government are prepared to do—to find out what is truly going on in those poorer areas, especially in the inner cities.

Conservative Members are wrong if they do not believe that there was great anger over the way in which some of the money was spent. It is all very well for hon. Members to deceive themselves—do not try to deceive the people as well. There was great anger in my constituency when people found out that £14 million had gone on purchasing Churchill's scribblings. There was intense anger. They thought, "Are we are putting in money to get that sort of thing—to benefit some well-heeled Tory Member of Parliament?"

I never thought that the hon. Gentleman was a killjoy. Is he really suggesting that he would take innate pleasure away from generations of young children who are probably scrabbling around in their lofts at this very moment looking for letters from fond grandparents?

I have a few letters from my fond grandparents, but I doubt whether I will get £14 million for them. If the hon. Gentleman wants to buy them, he can have them.

As someone who owns the papers of my late uncle Jimmy Maxton, although they are in a public library—they might not have the historical significance of Sir Winston Churchill's papers, but they certainly have historical significance and some value—I would never accept one penny for them. It is not that we should not have spent the £14 million. The disgrace is that anyone took the £14 million and then claimed to be a great patriot and that their grandfather was the greatest Englishman who ever lived.

I yield to no one in my admiration for Jimmy Maxton—an even more distinguished parliamentarian than my hon. Friend, but then are not most? No, that is not fair. My hon. Friend takes the honourable position.

We hear this great story about the market and what would have happened had we not stepped in. We know why people bought the Churchill papers. They thought that they would touch the patriotic fervour because it was the anniversary of the end of the war. They thought that people would throw their sweaty hats in the air and say, "Hurrah for the Churchills. We have given another 14 million quid to an undeserving descendant of the great Winston." They did not. They were intensely angry.

Frankly, no one in Newham will spend much time consulting the Churchill scribblings. Those papers are for the benefit of academics, who travel almost as regularly as Members of Parliament on factfinding tours these days. If they had been sold to a Texan university or wherever, academics would still have had access.

What on earth were we doing? It was middle-class people saving other middle-class people, in the mistaken idea that they could touch the patriotic fervour of this country when we were commemorating the second world war.

There are other examples. I know what the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) said about Eton college. I cannot believe that there is no benefit at all to that pre-eminent public school. That grant sends all the wrong messages. Whatever the truth of the matter and whoever was saying that it was a wrong accusation, there was intense anger in my constituency.

A lot more anger is coming the way of those who are so reckless with other people's money, for example when they realise that a lot of public money is to be spent on putting the royal yacht Britannia in Portsmouth harbour without its engine as part of its millennium site. I noticed in the Daily Mirror today that the Duke of Edinburgh has somehow managed to negotiate a deal whereby the yacht will be towed, because the engine will have gone, to Cowes each year, so that he can have it there for Cowes week. Again, that does not send the right message.

We know that the Palace has been plying Ministers with letters, asking why more money is not being given to the national maritime museum. The whole thing looks like a rig as far as we are concerned and that is why people are intensely angry.

It is nonsense to try to second-guess the punters. Money from areas such as mine should go back to areas such as mine because that is where the money was originally raised. If money is not being raised somewhere else, that means that the people there are not spending money on the lottery so why the hell should they get anything out of it? It is as simple as that.

People play the lottery because they want to get a prize back; at least they would know when they spend their money that if they do not win a prize, their community will get the residue back to improve facilities, whether that involves sports or arts facilities or other good causes. That is the way to do it. The technology to provide that choice should not be beyond the wit of Camelot. It could be done. On the back of ticket there should be a series of suggestions so that people could specify where they want their money to go.

I am about to be dragged off by the Whip so I must conclude. The charities are losing out but it was logical that they would. The Arts Council and heritage and sports bodies were not relying on charitable handouts. They were already getting funds. The lottery provides additional funding for them. There is only a certain amount of money going round. It is therefore right for the Government to discover how much the charities have lost and compensate them accordingly.

Of course the lottery is here to stay but let no Conservative Member accuse the Opposition of whingeing when we say that something as successful as the lottery is not beyond improvement. Improvements should be made and when Labour is in Government, those improvements will be made.

9 pm

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), as always, spoke with passion and sincerity on behalf of constituents. I congratulate him on the manner in which he did so.

The hon. Gentleman's speech contained a general criticism that, as he said, anybody might make about the national lottery. Anyone can have ideas about how the money is distributed. Indeed, I may have one or two of my own. It seems extraordinary that that has been the basis of all the hullabaloo surrounding the national lottery despite its fantastic success.

The Opposition have chosen to devote a whole day's debate to the subject. I am delighted that we are having this debate, because any extra publicity the national lottery gets, particularly if people are complaining that the prizes are too big, must be good for it; the more people who hear that the prizes are too big, the more people will buy tickets and the more money will be raised for good causes.

In the speech of the hon. Member for, Newham, North-West we again heard Labour's gtA reaction vendetta against anything that makes a profit. We heard it about all the privatised industries. We heard the same story about handing them profits on a plate. It was not evident when we privatised those industries that they would be easy to run and as profitable as they have been. It is the same with the national lottery. It has been far more successful than anyone dared anticipate when it was launched. Of course there were risks, risks such as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. Goodness knows what subject he will blow up about next, and goodness knows what hare he might have started running that could have damaged the launch of the national lottery. Happily, it went extremely well and better than expected and so Camelot has been more profitable than expected.

The national lottery was a completely new product in the British market. It was a virgin, untested market and there was a risk involved in its launch. It could even have been a disaster. In the hon. Gentleman's speech we had a hint of what has motivated his politics throughout his political life when he said that it was a case of middle class people spending money on middle class people. I suppose that it would be exceptional if we got through a debate on the distribution of national lottery money without somebody trying to reopen the class war debate.

Does the hon. Gentleman know anything about what has happened in other parts of the world? Could he name one national lottery in Europe, America, the far east or anywhere else that has ever failed?

I am sure that the most successful national lotteries have been those that have been commercially operated by profitable companies where the incentive motive has been applied. The lottery launch might not have been as successful as planned, in which case Camelot might have made a loss far into the future. It planned to make its first profit in the fourth year on a lower turnover than has been achieved.

indicated dissent.

If the hon. Gentleman was so confident that turnover was going to exceed what had been expected, why did he not raise the matter when the Bill was passed? Of course, he was not concerned about that then.

I shall briefly deal with comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). She made a great many complaints about the national lottery. She did not explain to the House or her constituents what her constituency is receiving from the national lottery. I note two grants to Birmingham of £3.7 million, one for the City of Birmingham symphony orchestra and one for Birmingham's gallery, as well as grants to charities. That is a huge benefit for Birmingham and one for which the hon. Lady should be more grateful.

The lottery was initiated by the Government and it is a Government success that, so much is now raised for good causes. I confess my own interests and prejudices in the matter. I am a concert and opera-goer. Two of my sisters are professional musicians who may well one day benefit from funds that have filtered through from the national lottery. I would have been a musician myself had not politics grabbed hold of me.

I am a member of the National Trust and look forward to it receiving funds from the lottery. I am a fan of English Heritage and look forward to it getting similar funds. There was always every expectation that the pinnacles of artistic achievement in this country were going to benefit from the national lottery. It ill befits even the Opposition to throw up their hands in horror because we have finally decided to give the Royal Opera house a decent amount of money to take it into the 21st century.

Every major opera centre in the world benefits considerably from public funds. It would be extraordinary if we did not devote considerable sums from the national lottery to such institutions. One may complain about elitists—and they are unashamedly elitist—getting money, but opera has become a very popular medium now that commercial radio stations such as Classic FM have made it even more popular.

The great pinnacles of artistic achievement used to be funded by private individuals before Labour Governments taxed them to death and destroyed the country's private wealth base. If we are going to tax heavily people who become wealthy, the state must take over the role of major patron of the arts. Haydn's patron may have been an Austrian prince with fantastic wealth; the Haydns of today have to depend on state funding to create their art.

In any event, funding is also going to other things such as the millennium fund, sport and the caring charities. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) on an exceptional and thoughtful speech.

I add my thanks to the national lottery and to the Government for the grants that my constituency has received. We have had £15,000 for the Wivenhoe sailing club and £11,550 for Lexden Springs school for children with severe learning difficulties. The university of the Essex is getting a £45,000 grant for a rock climbing wall. There are not many cliffs in Essex and that grant will help to develop a good sport. Far the biggest grant, however, has gone to an exceptional charity, Colchester Homestart, which received £121,000 from the lottery. I do not complain about that success; it is a tremendous boost for Colchester. No doubt I am not receiving a fair share of the handouts, because so much is going to Scotland and Wales, but I do not begrudge them that. We are in the early stages of distribution: there is much more to be distributed in the years ahead.

Perhaps more Labour Members are present now, but, given that this is an Opposition day, Labour attendance has been pretty thin. In his conference speech, the Leader of the Opposition presented slight but damaging proposals to undermine the lottery's success by limiting the prize money and creating an extra tier of bureaucracy in the distribution of funds. Of course, we can all make our own points about how those funds should be distributed.

The desire to control, the desire to interfere—it has all come out in Labour speeches today. There is a feeling that the state should not promote a form of gambling—a prejudice that winning large sums is sometimes bad for people. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on putting that point in context. There is a feeling that it is wrong to want to win large sums—that it is the Government's job to decide what is and is not good for individuals, even if that damages the objective of the lottery, which is to raise money for good causes. I am grateful to the Government for not listening to that advice.

Today's debate is intended—needlessly and pointlessly—to tease away at the lottery's teething problems. Of course there will be teething problems; the lottery has been going for only a few months. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne pointed out, the whole debate has been constructed on the basis of chatter around Islington dinner tables and the complaints that we have seen in The Guardian.

Of course we have much to learn about how to distribute lottery funds. To decide that funds are to be distributed to elitist causes such as the Royal Opera house and that handouts to charities are to be delayed sometimes requires considerable political astuteness. That is a problem; but, in future years, we shall have money coming out of our ears to devote to good causes, because the lottery has been such a success.

The debate says a lot about the Labour party. Concerns have been raised by the chattering classes; a whole debate has been constructed on the basis of a few minor amendments and talk of room for improvement, but there has been little to say on that subject. The motion

"calls for reform of the distribution mechanisms for Lottery funds"

to ensure a fairer distribution, but Labour is not proposing anything concrete. It has damaging plans for a vendetta against profit. Why do Labour Members stand up to defend Littlewoods pools—the Moores family has enjoyed a monopoly for many years and has made a great deal of money out of it—while saying that they do not want the lottery to make a profit?

Complaints about the delay in the establishment of a National Lottery Charities Board is hardly an adequate pretext for a whole day's debate. If this is the most pressing issue with which Her Majesty's official Opposition can occupy a whole day's debate, it is quite extraordinary. I wanted to speak in order to make my point about that useless lot over there.

9.12 pm

The speech of the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) spoke volumes about the Tory party's attitude. Our reasoned motion points out the success of the lottery; it also makes some suggestions for its improvement. I support the lottery. I think that its introduction in this country was long overdue, and I voted for it.

The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) reminded us that he introduced, in 1992, the private Member's Bill calling for a lottery to be set up, which had all-party support. He paid tribute to the support that he received at the time. During this debate, the Government have attempted to turn the lottery into not the people's but the Tories' lottery. Apparently, it somehow belongs to them: they thought of it, and they should take all the credit.

If Tories wish to make that claim, that is their business. All I can say is, it speaks volumes for the paucity of Tory success stories that they need to do that. Nevertheless, if they want to, they are welcome to it, because the lottery has been a great success.

What surprises me, however, is the fact that the Government cannot accept the reasonable and sensible motion, and I wonder why they cannot do so. Undoubtedly, out there in the real world, in the shops or supermarkets where people buy their lottery tickets, the overwhelming public perception is that the lottery is a good idea, but people have three great worries.

First, the public perception is that the operators of the lottery take too much profit. It does not matter what any Member of the House tries to say to dissuade them. The public perception is that Camelot makes a fortune from the lottery. We have heard certain hon. Members demonstrating why they believe that that is true but, whether or not it is true, the public perception is that Camelot is on to a good number and makes a fortune.

The second perception out there, among the wider public, the people who buy the lottery tickets, is that the money is not fairly distributed and that certain causes appear to have a fast-track approach, such as the Churchill papers. Perhaps that is unfair, but that is the public perception.

The third public perception is that, in spite of their vehement denials, the Government will try to use lottery money to substitute for public expenditure. Of course, no Minister will stand up and say that that is what they will do. No one will do that. However, I suggest that the Treasury will put pressure on the Department of National Heritage and the Department will freeze certain budgets and will not make additional moneys available to compensate for inflation in costs, wages and so on. Then it will say, if there is criticism, "But we have not cut the budget." It simply will not have provided for natural growth. That is when lottery money will begin to be diverted. The Department of National Heritage will say, "We have not cut the budget, but if you wish to top up existing programmes there is, of course, lottery money." That is the way in which it will be done.

The public are not daft. They know that it will be done. They know perfectly well what the game is about; it is about the Budget in November. It is about the tax cuts, the 1p or 2p off income tax and the other tax cuts—the tax bribes. The electorate are not daft. They play the lottery and they will take their chance of winning, but they realise exactly what it is.

What surprises me most of all is the fact that not only does the Tory party claim that it is its lottery but the party does not wish to improve it in response to some of those public worries. It would be an act of sheer stupidity for the Tory party to say, "The lottery as it stands is wonderful and could never be improved. If we could set it up again, we would set it up exactly as we have set it up now. We would allow Camelot to make the money that it makes. We would allow the money to be distributed in the way in which it has been done." Nevertheless, that is what the Government are saying—otherwise, they would accept the sensible suggestions made in the motion.

Is there not a fourth concept—jobs for the boys? Take, for example, the south bank project, which just happened to be designed, if I remember correctly, by the vice-chairman of the Arts Council. The acoustics of the building are not up to international standards and never can be, and it is only a facade. It is a classic example of jobs for the boys—and a mere £60 million is involved.

My hon. Friend gives an excellent example of the way in which the wider public perceive some of that money being distributed to those who have inside knowledge and the fast-track approach. There are many other examples.

The Churchill papers have been mentioned, and I make no apology for mentioning them again. The purchase of the Churchill papers was greeted with absolute derision and disgust by the wider public, and Conservative Members will know that from what they heard from their constituents.

I do not take a moral attitude towards gambling, and while I respect those people who argue against gambling on a moral basis, I do not agree with them. I find the attitude of the Church of England—which used to be known as the Tory party at prayer—if not hypocritical, then somewhat contradictory. The Church of England has pontificated about the lottery while encouraging its churches to put in applications for grants.

I want the lottery to be a success, but I want the people who contribute their money to the lottery to be the beneficiaries. There is no doubt that the public's perception is that Camelot has got a nice little earner. Reference has been made to a "licence to print money", a remark which goes back to the introduction of commercial television. Lord Thomson knew what commercial television was all about, and the same arguments advanced today about the lottery were advanced then—it is a new venture and a risk. Lord Thomson had no inhibitions about commercial television. He said that it was a licence to print money and that he could not lose, and he has been proved correct.

The lottery is exactly the same. There is no way in which Camelot could lose, and the idea that Camelot could muck up the whole thing, go into liquidation and have to be rescued by the Government to save the national lottery is nonsense. It was a licence to print money, and frankly the Government got taken for a ride. They did not drive a hard enough bargain with Camelot.

I would like to refer to a couple of by-products of the lottery. I am a supporter of the national lottery, but I am extremely concerned about two particular repercussions from it, one of which is the pools industry. I am not here to defend Littlewoods pools or any other firm, but I am here to express concern for our national game, which is football. Football is still the biggest participatory ball game in this country. Millions of people go to watch every week, and hundreds of thousands of people play football every week.

Professional football has had a huge influx of money at the highest levels following the deal with Sky, but public action has assisted in providing the money for the Football Trust to carry out much-needed improvement programmes at many grounds. The Government have helped by reducing betting tax. The Football Trust has been a huge beneficiary of money from the pools, but that money has been badly hit by the lottery.

I fear that, although the top clubs in this country—the Manchester Uniteds and Arsenals—have received Football Trust money and have carried out developments at their grounds, the smaller clubs, which are very much part of the fabric of their communities, will not have the money available to carry out much-needed improvements. That is a direct result of the impact of the lottery.

Reference has been made to the impact of scratchcards, and they have had an effect on the money that is coming into the Football Trust. They have also had an effect on the money coming into professional, part-time and amateur football clubs throughout the country, because many clubs relied on the income from their weekly scratchcards to make ends meet. I hope that the Government will accept that a by-product of the lottery will have a potentially enormous effect on our national game. I hope that the Government will take full note of that fact and that the Department of National Heritage, in discussions with the Chancellor, will seek to ensure that the enormous benefits that have accrued to football through the implementation of the Taylor report's recommendations do not disappear because money from the Football Trust—which is funded by the pools companies—is cut drastically as a result of the national lottery.

I have said that I support the national lottery. St. Peter's college in Saltley in my constituency applied for funds to build a new gymnasium, and the grant was awarded. The college is grateful for that award, and so am I. I hope that many more applications from my constituency will be equally well received by the various boards. I hope that Birmingham's bid for the millennium money that is needed to regenerate a desperately poor part of the city—which happens to be on the edge of my constituency in Digbeth—will also be received favourably by Government. I pay tribute to the benefits that have flowed from lottery money.

Is the bid not for Solihull?

Birmingham made its own bid for millennium money; perhaps the hon. Gentleman has other information.

I hope that the money raised by the lottery will flow to those areas from whence it came. My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) referred to the fact that it is the poorer people who play the lottery. Camelot has the figures to show exactly where the lottery money comes from. There is nothing to stop it producing figures that show that the largest amounts of money are raised in places such as Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Glasgow.

The Government could issue directions to the boards to ensure that those places from whence the money came will benefit most of all. That would be a fair and an enormously popular move. It would also head off the argument that lottery money goes only to prestigious, elitist projects.

I am surprised that the Government will not accept the very sensible and reasoned Opposition motion. I am sorry that Conservative Members have chosen to try to hijack the lottery as the Tory lottery. It is not; it belongs to the people and it originated in the House on an all-party initiative. I hope that Conservative Members will rethink on the matter. They must realise that there is bipartisan support for the lottery and that Labour Members' criticisms are not carping, but genuine and reasoned.

9.28 pm

I pay tribute to today's long and interesting debate and, in particular, to the excellent speeches of my hon. Friends, even though I disagreed with them on occasion. I recognise that they were constructive and sincere.

I wish to start with a confession: I like the lottery and I play the lottery. I regret that I have another confession to make: I have yet to win a brass farthing. If the lottery is, as Adam Smith described:

"A tax on all the fools in creation",

I plead guilty to being one of that number—if only in this instance. Illustrating the old maxim about remarriage—the triumph of hope over experience—there is no doubt that the hand in the sky has pointed at me from the advertisement. Unfortunately, it has used the wrong number of fingers—think about it.

There is also no doubt that the national lottery has caught the public's imagination. More than £4 billion has been wagered so far on the main lottery and its supplementary scratchcards. I think we all accept that that success is wildly beyond the expectations of the lottery's strongest supporters, among whom I happily number myself. In view of that success, it is important to get it right, to examine any shortcomings as they arise and to try to correct them.

Much disquiet has been voiced over the past few weeks, generally with some justification. The purpose of the debate has been to highlight the problems that we see as critical to the lottery's long-term success and to offer our remedies for consideration by the House. My right hon. and hon. Friends have sought assurances from the Secretary of State on many points. Sadly, she has in the main failed to provide them. At one stage she resorted to the tactic that she used in the Department of Health of bombarding us with misleading statistics and bland assurances that all will be well. How foolish of us to expect anything else.

I shall recap on some of the most obvious areas of concern in the hope that the Minister of State can do better in his speech. I shall deal first with the Treasury and the attempt by the Chief Secretary to offset lottery income against Arts Council grants. The Secretary of State rightly took action against that to defend her corner through the letter that was leaked to The Independent a few weeks ago.

The Government's initial position was absolutely straightforward. The then Secretary of State said in 1993 that the proceeds would not be brought within the control total and that the Government would not make any case-by-case reduction in conventional expenditure programmes to take account of awards from lottery proceeds. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said, that was followed by the Prime Minister's statement to the English Heritage conference in 1994 that the Government would make no case-by-case reduction on conventional public spending programmes to take account of awards from the lottery.

Surely the position is clear enough, but the Government amendment makes absolutely no mention of it, although we have mentioned it in our motion. I have carefully read their amendment but, alas, it contains no reference to this robust defence of the arts or of any other sector covered by the lottery. However, I am quite prepared to take the Secretary of State's word that she is fighting her corner and to wait until the figures are before us at the end of November to see what transpires. I accept that with the Budget coming up she may be constrained in what she can say, but I suspect that we may find that the position is not nearly as rosy as she would like us to think.

It is not as though the Treasury has done badly out of the lottery over the past year. I reckon that by the time of the Budget the Government will have taken more than 500 million quid out of our pockets and put it into theirs. They have done well out of the lottery and I see no need for them to come back for more. Surely what they have had is enough.

The action of the Wales tourist board in refusing to fund a jazz festival showed that at least one Department had not adhered to the spirit of the original commitment. The position had to be clarified and clear guidelines issued, and I welcome the Secretary of State's assurances in the debate that she has confirmed the original position and that the Department has agreed that in future it will apply.

The next issue is the profit accruing to the operator. Conservative Members always salivate when Labour Members start to talk about profits—as if they would defend any level of profits in any circumstance at any time. As a generality, at least to those who have brains, that is not the case. It is clear that the profits are wildly in excess of the original predictions. I fully accept that they match the success of the lottery and I also accept that success deserves some reward, but I warn Conservative Members that as the profits ring up from £100 million to £200 million, £300 million, £400 million, £500 million they will have much more difficulty than the Opposition in defending their position before the public.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government chose the wrong lottery operator?

No, I am saying that it is possible with hindsight to say that perhaps mistakes were made. I accept that it is always easy to argue in hindsight. We are arguing in hindsight. All modifications to schemes, after all, are carried out in hindsight. I am saying that the Government may have been taken for a ride by the lottery operator, which would not surprise me, and that the Government should, in turn, recognise that its profit is higher than a fair return on the risk that has been taken—effectively nil—and on the capital deployed, which is very much less. That is what profit and risk are based on: the capital deployed, not business turnover, as Conservative Members would like us to accept.

The return that the lottery operator will make on capital deployed in the next seven years will be indefensible, and Conservative Members know that just as well as Labour Members. Tonight's defence of that position is a sham.

Once again, a private monopoly is being allowed to take too great a share of the proceeds. We have said that, when we are in power and the contract comes up for renewal, we will ensure that a non-profit-making body will be set up to run the lottery. Meanwhile, I urge the Secretary of State to take what action she can to restrain Camelot's profit to as reasonable a return as possible, although, given the wording of the legislation, I accept that that may not be easy. It requires action and the involvement of the better nature of Camelot and, when it comes right down to it, I shall not place too much faith in its better nature,

We want transparency in decision-making. What is wrong with that? We want clear guidelines for the disbursement of money. Adequate accountability to the public is not unnecessary bureaucracy, but a necessary adjunct to the whole process. It is far superior to the use of whines and threats by Tory Members in the past week or two, and the disgraceful and covertly racist articles in some newspapers about some of the grants that have been awarded.

Those Conservative Members chose to criticise awards to the Somalia fund and the Vietnamese, but what two peoples in the world have experienced worse problems in the past two or three decades? In those circumstances, how could anyone possibly criticise the awards that have been given? It is a disgrace.

Let the public see that the process is fair. If suitable checks and balances are instituted, many of the misunderstandings that have arisen in the past couple of weeks will be avoided. That is all that we are asking for in the motion.

In the latest allocations, there have been winners and losers, which is inevitable in a lottery—trite but true. I am happy to say that my constituency has been a winner: the awards have included one substantial grant to the Cope centre of £159,000. I am proud and surprised to say that I was its referee. I should not be saying that as a great party of organisations will no doubt beat a path to my constituency surgery door next week to try to take advantage of my obvious skill in picking winners, at least on someone else's behalf, if not on my own. There have been other grants in my constituency, which I also welcome wholeheartedly because they will provide great benefit to communities there.

Other organisations, sadly, have not been so lucky, which again is inevitable. About 600 bids have been successful and 15,000 have either been unsuccessful or are yet to be processed.

So far.

So far. I recognise that more money is to come and that other organisations will be pleased in the coming months. The Minister must remember that he is no longer a Whip; he is not allowed to speak from a sedentary position.

Although I recognise the problems of maldistribution—all odd distributions may be ironed out in future allocations—it might be better if the Secretary of State considered having greater regional input in the selection process. I am not proposing how that could be done; I am merely suggesting that it might improve the overall allocation of money in regions. Many people and organisations have been disappointed in the present round. Let us hope that many of them will be satisfied in the rounds to come.

We need clear guidelines to ensure that the chance of success is maximised and applicants need a prompt explanation if their application has been rejected. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland explained why he would be unable to attend all the debate. He will return as soon as he can.

Several other problems require urgent action, but I recognise that since my time is drawing to a close I shall have to touch on them briefly. The system is inflexible and I can give two examples of that. At present, Scottish Opera is ineligible for funding. It desperately needs funding to keep going because it is impossible to keep a full opera company going in Scotland. It is trying to commission a new opera and project funding would go a long way towards meeting the shortfall that it is likely to face this year. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of that and do something about it.

In the same way, the Festival theatre in Edinburgh is facing problems. It incurred huge capital costs before it was eligible for grant. It will have difficulty in keeping going.

I regret that in the time available I am unable to say what I would like to about the problems facing medical charities, the football pools—the Chancellor may well cast a friendly nod in that direction—what to do with the millennium fund after it has been wound up and, last but by no means least, what to do about the social effects of the lottery on its users and those with gambling problems. We cannot take £4 billion out of the economy without some noticeable effects and it is about time that we thought about how to investigate what they are.

Let us remember that without the lottery we would not be having this debate because there would not be any money to disburse to good causes. Let us accept that it has been a good thing and that the Government have learnt something from the debate, but that may be a bit too much to hope. Let us hope that even now they can learn from the mistakes and act promptly rather than risk the whole thing turning sour in the long term.

9.41 pm

I welcome the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) to the Dispatch Box for his first national heritage debate. I thank him for the extremely pleasant manner in which he made his speech and I hope that it will be ever thus. I can confirm that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) courteously explained why he would not be able to be here, and I accept that.

I want to answer one or two of the general points that arose several times during the debate and, if there is time, I shall answer some of the specific points raised by hon. Members.

One of the first things that struck me was how, so often, Opposition Members raised points to which I thought that the answer had been given clearly and irrefutably. For instance, they raised the question of whether jackpot prizes should be capped. Let me explain as calmly and clearly as I can that the whole point of not capping the jackpot is that if there is a roll-over, more people buy tickets in the lottery that week and that means more money for good causes. That is the simple and irrefutable reason for that. The hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) mentioned that. I am not sure whether that is the Labour party's policy at the moment. That is why it would be wrong in simple arithmetical and financial terms to cap the jackpot.

The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy raised the question of additionality. Let me say beyond any doubt that the Government never had, and never will have, any intention of substituting lottery funding for what would otherwise be paid for by the Government. That is absolutely clear, and there was no need to put it in the motion.

If there was no need to put it in the motion, why did the Wales tourist board withdraw the offer of grant to the Brecon jazz festival information centre in the first place? The decision was reversed only this afternoon.

There is a simple reason for that. That grant had to be matched by private sector funding. That was stated specifically. The lottery funding was not private sector funding. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has considered the matter and agreed that the Wales tourist board should be in parallel with all the other tourist boards. The position has been changed. That has nothing to do with additionality. There are a number of Government schemes where there has to be private sector money. For example, Sportsmatch has to have private sector money levered in, as do environmental action grants. There was nothing dramatic about the matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State acted extremely swiftly in responding to what he thought was an anomaly. Opposition Members should be happy about that.

The Opposition state in their motion that they want the lottery to be run by a non-profit-making organisation. They fail to understand that it is precisely because Camelot is a private sector organisation that the lottery has been so successful. The more successful the lottery, the more successful the good causes, and the more successful are Camelot and its shareholders. It is exactly right that the general good is benefited by the private sector good. I do not know whether Opposition Members realise that, despite the short time that the lottery has been operating, it is about to become the most successful national lottery in the world. That is because of the excellent way in which Camelot has managed it.

Camelot has not made the massive, unfair and unjustified profits that Opposition Members have chosen to portray. In fact, profits are less than 1 per cent. of the turnover of the lottery, and are likely to remain so. That is a small amount of profit. If Opposition Members study what I believe is known as the bible of the lottery world, "La Fleur's Lottery World", which records all that happens in all the lotteries round the world, they will find that Camelot has been judged by that bible as No. 1 in the world league of efficiently run operators. It is the slimmest and cleanest lottery operator in the world. Camelot has built up almost the largest national lottery in the world—it is now No. 2—by operating the most efficient lottery.

It is argued by Labour Members that there was no risk attached to the lottery and that Camelot was given a licence to print money. I remember that when the relevant legislation was passing through the House, all the estimates of the turnover of the lottery were a little over £1 billion. Camelot bid on the basis that the lottery would not be the huge success that it has become. It was thought that the turnover would be very much less. There were eight bidders and Camelot offered the most money to good causes. If it was such an obvious no-risk business, why did the seven other bidders not do as well? In fact, there was a serious risk and, as I have said, Camelot offered the best deal for good causes.

We have been reminded that Mr. Richard Branson submitted a bid. If Opposition Members take the trouble to read page 33 of the National Audit Office's account of the matter, they will find that Mr. Branson did not offer as much to good causes as did Camelot. He was not even second. Indeed, he was not even third. The bid, as the NAO stated, was conducted in a manner beyond reproach. It said how well the bid was done, as did La Fleur's, the bible of lotteries around the world, which also said that we have the most efficient lottery in the world. Not even a year after its establishment, our lottery is the second biggest national lottery in the world. I think that we should be extremely pleased and proud of what Camelot has managed to do.

I said that in the short time available I would try to go through some of the points raised today. I shall do it in order, as that is perhaps the fairest way. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) referred to what the churches have said about the national lottery in the past day or two. I shall not say too much about what I think about what the churches have said except that I believe it to be completely wrong. They are entitled to their view and I am entitled to mine, but it seems odd to say that the lottery should never have happened and that it is damaging society but then to take lottery money. I understand that the Church of Scotland said that it does not condone gambling and has refused to take the money, which seems the honourable thing to do.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), who had so much to do with starting up the lottery in the first place, said that the purpose of the lottery was to

"make a fundamental difference to the sporting and artistic fabric of the nation."

That was the purpose and that is what has happened.

My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), a man whose credit in the sporting world none would venture to dispute, said that the difference made by the national lottery is incalculable. Hon. Members have only to look at the figures; they do not need to take my word for it. The Sports Council gets almost £50 million a year and will continue to get something of that order. However, the national lottery gives £200 million a year to sport and will provide more when it gets even better. The lottery is therefore giving four times as much to sport as the Sports Council was ever able to do and the Sports Council goes on giving. A similar thing is happening with the Arts Council. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney was right to say that the lottery has made a fundamental difference to the way in which the arts and sport are handled in this country, let alone the national heritage millennium fund and charities.

My right hon. and learned Friend also said that perhaps the National Lottery Charities Board should give more money to mainstream charities. I know that that view is widely held in the House. No doubt the NLCB, which is responsible for making such decisions, rather than the Government, will have heard what has been said and will act accordingly.

The hon. Member for Mossley Hill made a moderate and interesting speech. He mentioned Richard Branson, to whom I have already referred. He said that the charities have lost out but I have two responses to make to that point. First, the research done so far into what has happened to charities since the lottery was established is extremely mixed. Money given to the Red Cross has increased, as has the money given to the Cancer Relief Macmillan Fund. However, the Royal National Institute for the Blind said that its income has dropped considerably, although it turns out that the drop has been in legacies, which are not affected by the lottery.

The Irish lottery carried out some research into what had happened to Irish charities and found that the majority had seen an increase in their income since the lottery had been running. There is no proof in what has been said, and it is perfectly proper for the hon. Member for Mossley Hill to keep his viewpoint at this stage. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has instituted research into what exactly has happened since the lottery began.

At last.

One cannot undertake research into the lottery's effect on charities until the lottery has had an effect on them. Once the research has been done, we shall see whether the hon. Member for Mossley Hill was right.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), who had so much to do with promoting the lottery in the House, mentioned the tremendous change in the funding of the arts and sport and the fact that we are living with a success. How pleasant it is to debate something whose absolute success cannot be disputed. We thought that we would be turning over £1 billion a year—we find that we are turning over almost £5 billion a year. We thought that the arts, sports, national heritage and the charities would have some £80 million a year to spend among themselves—now we find that they have £200 million or perhaps £300 million a year. It is a marvellous success.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) made a very supportive speech, and one that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne said, was extremely interesting. The hon. Gentleman began by criticising the Scottish National party for saying that the money which went to the Royal Opera house in London somehow did Scotland out of money. Perhaps there could be agreement across the Floor of the House on how that shows appalling ignorance about the way in which the lottery is run, because of course Scotland has its own Arts Council with its own money from the lottery for it to distribute. The Royal Opera house lottery money, whatever anybody may think about it, came from the Arts Council of England and not the Arts Council of Scotland.

As to whether the Government would offer the same contract to Camelot again, a question asked fairly by the hon. Member for Cathcart, the answer is that the matter will be for the recommendation of the Director General of Oflot; but I do not dodge the question. Since the lottery has been running for less than a year, I would not say what my attitude would be when the franchise came to an end. Let us see what happens. At the moment, I think that Camelot has done an absolutely wonderful job, and with net profits as a percentage of turnover of less than 1 per cent., it is giving remarkably good value.

The hon. Member for Cathcart mentioned the important matter of capital versus revenue, and asked whether we should spend all the money on capital or allocate some for revenue. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne also mentioned that. I would like to find a way of funding revenue, but it is extremely difficult. It is almost a straight banking problem: if we fund revenue, if we fund the coaching which my hon. Friend says is so vital—I agree with him—to sportsmen at the highest level, that means that revenue funding has to be spread over at least three, and perhaps five, years for it to bite. Of course that means that we would be undertaking to spend in years one, two, three, four and five money that we do not have at the moment. That is the problem.

We shall try to find a way round the problem and we have already said that certain capital projects can have a revenue tail to them. That is a start. I promise the hon. Member for Cathcart and the House that we are trying to find a way to solve this important matter in a manner that is financially prudent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) made his usual incisive speech—[Laughter.] It was a very good speech and it ill becomes hon. Members who were not even in the Chamber at the time to laugh at one of the outstanding contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend said that we should look again at the way in which the charities board is working. I shall draw that to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the charities board, to ensure that it understands that there is some feeling in the House that mainstream charities should be supported a little more, but it is for the board to make the decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), in an extremely amusing and powerful speech, made the essential point of which the House must not lose sight—already some 2,111 awards have been made. We are talking about a great success, and it really was a little dispiriting to see, on an Opposition Supply day, first that the Opposition Benches were almost empty for most of the afternoon, and, secondly—apart from one or two speeches such as that made by the hon. Member for Cathcart—that, without doubt, the general tone was of a rather whingeing, carping nature. I hope that that will stop when Opposition Members have it explained to them that Camelot is not making the excessive profit that they thought it was.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). As we all know, he was one of the great originators of the lottery. He deserves great credit and I am sure that in his speech he felt a great deal of pride knowing that what he helped to begin has become a great lottery.

With those few words at the end of a debate about one of the great successes of this country, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Opposition motion, a motion that has shown clearly that the Opposition have no idea what the lottery is about. I invite the House to oppose the motion and to support the amendment in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 302.

Division No. 224]	[10.00 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane	Church, Judith
Adams, Mrs Irene	Clapham, Michael
Anger, Nick	Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)	Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Allen, Graham	Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Alton, David	Coffey, Ann
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)	Connarty, Michael
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)	Corbett, Robin
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy	Corbyn, Jeremy
Ashton, Joe	Corston, Jean
Austin-Walker, John	Cousins, Jim
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Cummings, John
Barron, Kevin	Cunliffe, Lawrence
Battle, John	Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Bayley, Hugh	Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret	Dafis, Cynog
Beith, Rt Hon A J	Dalyell, Tam
Benn, Rt Hon Tony	Darling, Alistair
Bennett, Andrew F	Davidson, Ian
Benton, Joe	Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Bermingham, Gerald	Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Berry, Roger	Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Betts, Clive	Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Blunkett, David	Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Boateng, Paul	Denham, John
Bradley, Keith	Dewar, Donald
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Dixon, Don
Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)	Dobson, Frank
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)	Donohoe, Brian H
Burden, Richard	Dowd, Jim
Byers, Stephen	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Caborn, Richard	Eagle, Ms Angela
Callaghan, Jim	Eastham, Ken
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Etherington, Bill
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)	Evans, John (St Helens N)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)	Fatchett Derek
Campbell-Savours, D N	Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Cann, Jamie	Fisher, Mark
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)	Flynn, Paul
Chidgey, David	Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Chisholm, Malcolm	Foulkes, George

Fraser, John	MacShane, Denis
Fyfe, Maria	Madden, Max
Galbraith, Sam	Maddock, Diana
Galloway, George	Mahon, Alice
Gapes, Mike	Mandelson, Peter
Garrett, John	Marek, Dr John
George, Bruce	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Gerrard, Neil	Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John	Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Godman, Dr Nomian A	Martlew, Eric
Godsiff, Roger	Maxton, John
Golding, Mrs Llin	Meacher, Michael
Graham, Thomas	Michael, Alun
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)	Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Milburn, Alan
Grocott, Bruce	Miller, Andrew
Gunnell, John	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Hain, Peter	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hall, Mike	Morgan, Rhodri
Hanson, David	Morley, Elliot
Harman, Ms Harriet	Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Harvey, Nick	Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Henderson, Doug	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Heppell, John	Mowlam, Marjorie
Hill, Keith (Streatham)	Mudie, George
Hinchliffe, David	Mullin, Chris
Hodge, Margaret	Murphy, Paul
Hoey, Kate	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)	O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Home Robertson, John	O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Hoon, Geoffrey	O'Hara, Edward
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)	Olner, Bill
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)	O'Neill, Martin
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Hoyle, Doug	Parry, Robert
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Pearson, Ian
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)	Pendry, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)	Pickthall, Colin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)	Pike, Peter L
Hutton, John	Pope, Greg
Illsley, Eric	Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Ingram, Adam	Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)	Prescott, Rt Hon John
Jamieson, David	Primarolo, Dawn
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)	Purchase, Ken
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)	Quin, Ms Joyce
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)	Radice, Giles
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)	Randall, Stuart
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)	Raynsford, Nick
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)	Reid, Dr John
Jowel, Tessa	Rendel, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)	Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)	Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Khabra, Piara S	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Kilfoyle, Peter	Rogers, Allan
Kirkwood, Archy	Rooker, Jeff
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)	Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Lewis, Terry	Rowlands, Ted
Liddell, Mrs Helen	Ruddock, Joan
Litherland, Robert	Salmond, Alex
Livingstone, Ken	Sedgemore, Brian
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)	Sheerman, Barry
Llwyd, Elfyn	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Loyden, Eddie	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Lynne, Ms Liz	Short, Clare
McAllion, John	Simpson, Alan
McCartney, Ian	Skinner, Dennis
McCartney, Robert	Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
McFall, John	Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
McKelvey, William	Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)
Mackinlay, Andrew	Soley, Clive
McLeish, Henry	Spellar, John
Maclennan, Robert	Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
McNamara, Kevin	Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Steinberg, Gerry	Wareing, Robert N
Stevenson, George	Watson, Mike
Stott, Roger	Welsh, Andrew
Strang, Dr. Gavin	Wicks, Malcolm
Straw, Jack	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)
Sutcliffe, Gerry	Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)	Wilson, Brian
	Winnick, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)	Wise, Audrey
Timms, Stephen	Worthington, Tony
Tipping, Paddy	Wray, Jimmy
Touhig, Don	Wright Dr Tony
Tyler, Paul	Young, David (Bolton SE)
Vaz, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold	Tellers for the Ayes:
Wallace, James	Mr. David Clelland and
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)	Mr. Dennis Turner.

NOES
Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)	Colvin, Michael
Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan	Congdon, David
Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)	Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Allason, Rupert (Torbay)	Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Amess, David	Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Ancram, Michael	Cormack, Sir Patrick
Arbuthnot, James	Couchman, James
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)	Cran, James
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)	Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Ashby, David	Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Atkins, Rt Hon Robert	Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)	Davis, David (Boothferry)
Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (M Valley)	Day, Stephen
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Deva, Nirj Joseph
Banks, Matthew (Southport)	Devlin, Tim
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)	Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Bates, Michael	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Batiste, Spencer	Dover, Den
Beggs, Roy	Duncan, Alan
Bellingham, Henry	Duncan-Smith, Iain
Bendall, Vivian	Dunn, Bob
Beresford, Sir Paul	Durant, Sir Anthony
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Elletson, Harold
Booth, Hartley	Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Boswell, Tim	Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)	Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia	Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Bowden, Sir Andrew	Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Bowis, John	Evennett, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes	Faber, David
Brandreth, Gyles	Fabricant, Michael
Brazier, Julian	Fenner, Dame Peggy
Bright, Sir Graham	Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter	Fishburn, Dudley
Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)	Forman, Nigel
Browning, Mrs Angela	Forsythe, Clifford (South Antrim)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset)	Forth, Eric
Budgen, Nicholas	Fowler, fit Hon Sir Norman
Burns, Simon	Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Burt, Alistair	Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Butcher, John	Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Butler, Peter	French, Douglas
Butterfill, John	Fry, Sir Peter
Carlisle, John (Luton North)	Gale, Roger
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)	Garnier, Sir George
Carrington, Matthew	Garnier, Edward
Carttiss, Michael	Gill, Christopher
Cash, William	Gillan, Cheryl
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Chapman, Sir Sydney	Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Churchill, Mr	Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Clappison, James	Gorst Sir John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)	Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Coe, Sebastian	Grylls, Sir Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn	Luff, Peter
Hague, Rt Hon William	Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Sir Archibald	McCrea, The Reverend William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)	MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Hampson, Dr Keith	MacKay, Andrew
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy	Maclean, Rt Hon David
Hannam, Sir John	McLoughlin, Patrick
Hargreaves, Andrew	McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Harris, David	Maitland, Lady Olga
Haselhurst, Sir Alan	Major, Rt Hon John
Hawkins, Nick	Malone, Gerald
Hawksley, Warren	Mans, Keith
Hayes, Jerry	Marland, Paul
Heald, Oliver	Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Heathcoat-Amory, David	Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Hendry, Charles	Mates, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Hicks, Robert	Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence	Mellor, Rt Hon David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)	Merchant, Piers
Horam, John	Mills, Iain
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael	Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)	Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)	Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)	Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)	Nelson, Anthony
Hunter, Andrew	Neubert, Sir Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas	Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Jack, Michael	Nicholls, Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)	Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Jenkin, Bernard	Norris, Steve
Jessel, Toby	Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Oppenheim, Phillip
Jones, Gwilyrn (Cardiff N)	Ottaway, Richard
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)	Page, Richard
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Paice, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine	Patnick, Sir Irvine
Key, Robert	Patten, Rt Hon John
King, Rt Hon Tom	Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy	pawsey, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)	Pickles, Eric
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)	Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)	Porter, David (Waveney)
Knox, Sir David	Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)	Powell, William (Corby)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Rathbone, Tim
Lamont, Rt Hon Norrnan	Redwood, Rt Hon John
Lang, Rt Hon Ian	Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan	Richards, Rod
Legg, Barry	Riddick, Graham
Leigh, Edward	Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark	Robathan, Andrew
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)	Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Lidington, David	Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Lightbown, Sir David	Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter	Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)	Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Lord, Michael	Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Sackville, Tom	Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy	Thurnham, Peter
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Shaw, David (Dover)	Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)	Tracey, Richard
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian	Tredinnick, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)	Trend, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)	Trotter, Neville
Shersby, Sir Michael	Twinn, Dr Ian
Sims, Roger	Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Skeet, Sir Trevor	Viggers, Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)	Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)	Walden, George
Smyth, The Reverend Martin	Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Soames, Nicholas	Waller, Gary
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)	Ward, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)	Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Spink, Dr Robert	Waterson, Nigel
Spring, Richard	Watts, John
Sproat, Iain	Wells, Bowen
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)	Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John	Whitney, Ray
Steen, Anthony	Whittingdale, John
Stephen, Michael	Widdecombe, Ann
Stern, Michael	Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Streeter, Gary	Wilkinson, John
Sweeney, Walter	Willetts, David
Sykes, John	Wilshire, David
Tapsell, Sir Peter	Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)	Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)	Wood, Timothy
Taylor, John M (Solihull)	Yeo, Tim
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)	Young, Rt Hon Sir George
Temple-Morris, Peter
Thomason, Roy	Tellers for the Noes:
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)	Mr. Derek Conway and
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)	Mr. Roger Knapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the huge success of the National Lottery and the enormous sums of extra money it is raising for the Good Causes Fund to go to the arts, sport, the heritage, the caring charities and the celebration of the Millennium; believes that the operator, whose selection was endorsed by the NAO, is running the lottery efficiently and cost-effectively; congratulates the distributing bodies on making an excellent start in spreading the benefits of the Lottery throughout the land; and calls upon the Opposition to recognise this success and the opportunity it brings to improve the quality of life.

Mersey Docks And Harbour Company

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Streeter.]

10.15 pm

I welcome the opportunity of raising a problem concerning the port of Liverpool and its dock workers. I declare an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union for 50 years, a record of which I am proud. I served on union committees at both district and national level in the docks and waterways section. Those are my credentials for understanding the history of the docks industry. I hope that the Minister accepts that.

The dispute was brought to a head by the conduct of the employer and the deterioration of industrial relations. The House will know that the Government, through the Dock Work Act 1989, abolished the national dock labour scheme. That was done on the basis that the industry had moved ahead. It was no longer labour intensive but moving towards being more capital intensive.

However reluctantly, the dockers accepted that situation. Nevertheless, they felt, and I think that their fears were well founded, that the result of the abolition of the scheme would be a return to casual labour.

That is what they are worried about.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) says, that is what they are worried about. Everything that the dock company has done recently confirms that fear.

I and my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey, for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), met the dock company which said that it wanted casual labour. It referred to it as permanent casual labour. I do not know what that means; perhaps the Minister will be able to explain it. It must mean either permanently casual or casually permanent. I do not know which of those the company meant.

There is no doubt that the dock workers fear a return to the sort of days that I can remember. The Minister probably does not remember them. I can tell him that men in those days were treated worse than animals. They were herded into tightly packed pens. The selection of men was based on discrimination of all sorts; it could be based on religion, or on whether men had blue eyes or anything. The dignity of those men was taken from them; they were lowered to the status of animals. Men were hired, and the rest were sent home without work or wages. It was through the struggle of dock workers throughout the country that the conditions that they endured were recognised as inhuman and undeniably barbaric.

The campaign lasted throughout the century, up to and after the war. The campaigners wanted a scheme to end casualisation and give dockers the dignity enjoyed by other workers. The industry in Liverpool provided the life blood for the local economy—not only in Liverpool, but in the hinterland on both sides of the river. Liverpool's wealth grew out of that work force—dockers, seamen and others. As recently as pre-1989, that force consisted of 6,000 people; now it consists of only 500.

The Minister must understand that the events that brought the present situation to a head were not instantaneous; they had been building up as a result of poor labour relations. Let me also stress that massive support is coming from areas that no one would expect to give such support. Religious leaders have condemned the company; the Liverpool Echo—which I have never known to praise or support any striker, let alone dockers, at any time in its history—has made rousing comments about the way in which the company has handled the situation. Further support has been provided by the local community.

Recently, even the head of Radio Merseyside—[Interruption.]—I mean Radio City—said, at a dinner for business men, no less, that the company was acting like the mill owners of the 19th century. That shows the depth of feeling in Liverpool about the way in which the company has treated its dockers. These are decent men, who stayed in the docks rather than taking £35,000 and walking away. They wanted to continue to work in the docks, and they had a right to do so.

Those who have met the board and the dockers have gained the impression that the company set out to ensure a disturbance, so that the men would finally go through the gate. The company could then attempt to recruit outside, abandoning responsibility for the container base so that it would be taken over and scabs would be drafted in to take the jobs. I make no apology for calling them scabs: they would undermine dock workers by walking in and working for lower wages, under the conditions that prevailed before and even after the war.

The Minister may ask what that has to do with him. The Government, however, have shares in the company; they have a responsibility to tell it—as I hope that they will—that, in return for the tranches of money that they have given for its modernisation, the company must deal with this problem, and respond to the feelings expressed by local people.

Liverpool is a successful port. It is now turning over £35 million—the highest amount that it has turned over in its history.

That has happened because dock workers have accepted the change, no matter how bitterly it has taken place, and they are the people who have created the wealth for the company. They have created the success. It is not made in offices or boardrooms. It is made by the people who work on the coal face of industry—in the docks. They are the people who have made it possible for the port to be probably the most successful in the post-war period.

I say to the Government that that position will not go away. There is now a great deal of strong feeling about the way in which the dockers have been treated. I remind the House and the Minister that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who was the Secretary of State for Employment at the time when the Dock Work Bill was passing through the House—and I have played a part in every dock Bill that has been discussed in the House since I have been a Member of Parliament—said:

"Dock work is now highly skilled specialist work that often requires the use of sophisticated machinery. It requires a permanent and well trained work force. The days when large numbers of unskilled workers assembled waiting to see if"

they were to work

"have gone for good—and everyone is glad of that. To underline that point, the employers in the present scheme ports have given an assurance that after abolition there will be no return to casual employment."—[Official Report, 17 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 45.]

We refer to ourselves in this place as honourable men.

And women.

And women. I thank my hon. Friend.

The Secretary of State has made statements of that type and the director of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has made a similar statement that there would be no return to casualisation. The incident that triggered off that position occurred at a company that was set up with the consent—or agreement—of both the company and the dock workers. That was Torside.

Among the workers at that company were young men—younger than the existing age range among the dock workers—and they formed part of the company in the port of Liverpool. Five of those young men, many of whom were dockers' sons, some not, who were keen to get into dock work, keen to obtain a job in the docks, were asked—or told, I should say—to work overtime. There was a dispute about the conditions of that overtime, which resulted in the men refusing to work overtime. They were summarily dismissed—or, as we say, sacked on the spot. That was what triggered off the present position.

For several days, reconciliation was tried, but it fell on deaf ears on the dock company's part. We, as Members of Parliament, met representatives of the company and tried to instil in them the importance of what was going on. The issue was a minor matter that could have been settled at a later date.

As a result of the strength of feeling among those men, they formed a picket of the dock gates the following week. Obviously, the rest of the container base men would not cross a picket line. Dockers do not know what it means to cross a picket line—they will not do it. As a consequence, the dock company sacked the lot.

It is 1995, and we are returning to the dark days of threatened casualisation. I believe that that is a serious threat. I believe that people are entitled to work with dignity under conditions that are human, and to be part of the process of developing the industry in the way that they have.

At one time, the dockers were the butt of the jokes of some poor comedians, but they themselves have a sense of humour that no one can match and they are men, in that sense, who are proud to be dockers. They are proud of the work they do and proud of the port in which they work, and so are their families and friends and their communities.

With the indulgence of the House, I shall read a letter sent by a docker's wife on the matter. The letter states:

"I am speaking as the wife of a man who has worked on the now booming and highly profitable Liverpool Docks for 28 years, through good times and bad. He has constantly refused severance pay because he wants to work.

I do not work, I look after my elderly parents, our children are still in the education system on inadequate grants, that we have to subsidise. We are totally dependent on my husband's income and I stand firmly beside him whatever the outcome.

I am not political. The only organisations I am a paid up member of are Amnesty International and the Christmas Hamper Club.

On Thursday, when the letter threatening dismissal arrived, I put it in the folder with the others. On Friday when he was sacked, I felt perversely relieved, because over the last 3–4 years, we have lived constantly under this threat. I have stood by and watched as MDHC have in my opinion, used and totally abused a loyal hardworking, co-operative workforce which is acknowledged as the best in the country.

I have watched my husband being bullied by threats and borne the knock-on effects this has on family and social life. It might be OK I said—you will know your rota in advance. It will only be changed occasionally. We can plan our lives around it. How wrong I was.

We have phone calls practically on a daily basis, altering his shift. 7am to 3pm will be changed to 7 to 7. 3pm to 11pm can become 11am to 11pm or nights. The day before a rota day off, they can ring and change your shift to 12 hour nights, then your day off becomes a sleep day.

We get calls on his day off, asking him to work or to change the next day's shift. Bank Holidays—you are expected to work 12 hours. But for your day in lieu you get 7 hours pay.

We have had a call when he has been in bed less than 4 hours after a 12 hour night shift, he was back at work—driving a straddler."

The Minister will be well aware of that docking implement. The letter continued:

"I wondered how human beings could treat their fellow men in such a cruel and insensitive way—without any apparent thought for the social and economic consequences.

Well Mr. Furlong and Mr. Cliff—when you climb into your beds tonight, spare a thought for me.

Doreen McNally—human being—wife and mother—red hair, blue eyes, flesh and blood and as much right to shelter and nourish my family as you have yours."

I ask the Minister to intervene in this case and to try to bring some sense into the minds of the people who have caused the situation. The Minister must give an undertaking that there will be no return to casual work, as promised by a Tory Secretary of State in the past.

10.33 pm

I fully support the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who explained to the House the problems facing dockers in Liverpool. I have been inundated with letters from dockers, and from the wives of dockers who are astounded and out of their minds at the idea of their husbands being unemployed.

As my hon. Friend said, dockers with up to 35 years' service are being thrown on the scrapheap without redundancy pay, while those under 55 will have their pensions frozen. That is inhuman, and it is a disgrace that the company can treat workers in that manner. We have met the dock company and—to be perfectly frank—I was disgusted with its attitude. The company's attitude was that it was too bad that these men were being thrown out of work, and Mr. Cliff was reported in the local press as saying that the men would be put out of work irrespective of interventions from Members of Parliament or from church leaders—Catholic, Anglican and Free church leaders—who have begged for the dockers' case to be considered again. Mr. Trevor Furlong said that casualisation would not follow the abolition of the dock labour scheme.

On 17 April 1989, I asked the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) to give an assurance that there would be no casualisation of jobs. He assured me that that was the case. I hope that in his wind-up speech tonight the Minister will confirm that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Education and Employment will meet dockers and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company around the table. I hope that the men will then be able to return to work and no jobs will be lost.

10.35 pm

I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) on securing this debate. I am very much aware that both he and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) have a long record of service to the people of Liverpool. In my role as the Department of Trade and Industry Minister with specific responsibility for industrial issues in the north-west and Merseyside, I visited Liverpool on Friday of last week and again this morning when I attended a meeting with the American ambassador, representatives of local government, private business and the regional agencies, which are all working towards promoting urban regeneration in the area.

In replying to the debate, I think that it is necessary to examine some of the facts of the dispute. They have been touched on to a certain extent in the two previous speeches. The dispute at the port of Liverpool started at a cargo handling company, Torside Ltd. On 28 September, Torside dismissed two employees over a dispute about overtime payments and alleged casualisation. I have heard that described initially as a minor matter, and I have no evidence to challenge that assessment. However, what happened thereafter is of some concern.

Following the dismissals, the remainder of Torside's 80 dockers took strike action and were themselves subsequently dismissed. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company became involved in the dispute only when the dismissed Torside workers established a picket line outside the docks. I was brought up in the mining town of Tredegar in south Wales, and I understand the resonance of picket lines. A large number of Mersey Docks and Harbour Company employees refused to cross the picket line, and work at Seaforth's container and timber terminal stopped. After three days, the company held that the men had dismissed themselves and issued them with dismissal notices.

The company said that it dismissed 300 dockers out of its work force of 380 for breach of contract when the men refused to cross an unofficial picket line and report for work.

rose—

I hope that the hon. Lady will excuse me, but I shall not give way. I have been allowed only 10 minutes in which to reply to the debate and I think that many people in Liverpool are anxious to hear the Government respond to the points that were put at some length by the hon. Member for Garston.

In order to ensure that the docks continued to operate, the company advertised the vacant posts. I understand that, in doing so, it made it clear that it would consider applications from the dismissed dockers if they chose to apply.

Let us turn to the actions of the union involved: the Transport and General Workers Union. I note that it sponsors the hon. Members for Garston and for Riverside and they have declared that interest. I also declare the fact that I often acted for the Transport and General Workers Union in my legal practice. The union has not authorized or endorsed—I stress that point—the action at either Torside or at the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. Therefore, the action is unofficial. However, both local and national union officers have made statements criticising the company, calling for the reinstatement of those who have been dismissed and for an end to the use of casual labour.

As the Minister responsible for the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, I wish to comment on potential ACAS involvement. I understand that it has been in touch with both parties and that discussions between the company and the union are continuing. ACAS will continue to monitor the situation and it will become involved as and when both parties wish it to do so. However, it must be recognised that—I reinforce this point—ACAS is an independent body and the Government do not have the power to instruct either party to make use of its services.

We heard much in the debate about the law and how it has inhibited dockers in their alleged fight for justice. It will be helpful to examine the facts. It has always been the law, even under legislation by the last Labour Government, that workers who break their contracts of employment can be dismissed and may not be able to claim for unfair dismissal. The law does not provide for immunity from court proceedings for anyone who takes industrial action against an employer who is not a party to the trade dispute to which the action relates. I re-emphasise that point.

The law also requires a union to hold a properly conducted ballot of its members before organising industrial action. It must provide notice of the ballot and details of the result to the employer. It must give seven days' notice of industrial action to the employer and describe those whom it intends should take part. If there is a failure to do that—which is not what happened in this case—the union will not be protected from the possibility of legal action for inducing breaches of contract.

The law protects strikers against discrimination when their strike is official, which means that it is authorised or endorsed by a trade union. Dismissed strikers may be able to claim unfair dismissal if their employer has sacked only some of those who are on strike or if he has reinstated or offered new contracts to some of those who were sacked—[Interruption.] I am explaining the position of those who are on strike and have then been dismissed. I said at the beginning of my speech that that is the situation we are dealing with, although some Opposition Members do not appear to recognise that.

In this case, workers were breaking their contracts of employment without making any attempt to use the proper channels for redress in an industrial dispute. The employees of Torside simply chose to walk off the job without a ballot. The employees of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company had no dispute with their employer before they went on strike themselves, and the action of those men was unofficial and unlawful. It was inevitable that consequences would flow from that.

There can be no protection under the law for employees who take unofficial and, in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company employees, secondary and illegal action. As we know, that is precisely the sort of disruptive behaviour that caused so much damage in the past.

The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, in its capacity as the operator of the port of Liverpool, is one of the most significant contributors to the region's economy, and that is good news throughout the north-west. Liverpool university's study entitled "The Employment Impact of the Port of Liverpool in the 1990s" estimates that between 49,000 and 105,000 jobs on Merseyside, which are held by many of the people who are represented by many Opposition Members, depend on the trading activities of the port. That is one of the reasons why it is particularly important that the port should continue to operate.

In the debate we have heard a great deal about casualisation and it is important to explain that casualisation carries particular meaning in the context of dock work. The hon. Member for Garston spoke graphically about that and will have noted that I agreed with his assessment. The term reminds one of bygone days when men were literally fighting one another for the odd day's work. Those brutish practices are long gone and in that sense casualisation no longer exists. That is not surprising, because the nature of dock work has changed radically over the years. New technologies have transformed the way in which the work is undertaken, and our docks no longer teem with gangs of workers manually heaving loads on and off ships. The work today requires skill and adaptability, and one does not obtain a work force with those attributes by returning to the arcane and unsatisfactory recruitment practices of the 1930s.

I have said that the term "casualisation" has a special meaning for the docks. It is an emotive term that rekindles old animosities and can stoke up groundless fears and discontent. It is not to be bandied about in a carefree manner as it has sometimes been in the context of this dispute, especially at a time when the dispute is running with all the resonances that we have heard about in the debate. According to the labour force survey, approximately 85 per cent. of stevedores and dockers are permanently employed.

The port of Liverpool has a proud history. It used to deal with transatlantic liners and sustained a healthy trade until the technical developments of the late 1960s and chronic overmanning imposed by the dock labour scheme caught up with it. Following abolition of that scheme, the port took on a new lease of life. Cargo volumes are at record levels—29 million tonnes in 1994, which is treble the amount for 1987. Many additional shipping lines have been attracted to the port whose Seaforth container terminal and the freeport continue to attract additional traffic. Staff levels are set at realistic levels which are appropriate to the business needs of the docks as opposed to the overmanning—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR.DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Volume 264: debated on Wednesday 25 October 1995

House Of Commons

Prayers

General Practitioners (West Country)

Community Service

Greece

Share Options

Solihull Hospital

Private Business

Loch Leven And Lochaber Water Power Order Confirmation

Oral Answers To Questions

Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs

Middle East

Intergovernmental Conference

Lockerbie

Bosnia

Treaty Ratification

Western European Union

Cyprus

Inward Investment

Middle East

Former Yugoslavia

Kashmir

East Timor

Iraq

Intergovernmental Conference

Brazil

Former Yugoslavia

Bosnia

Know-How Funds

Indo-British Partnership

Bill Presented

Disabled Persons Civil Rights Commission

Trade Union Employment Rights

Trade Union Employment Rights

Opposition Day

National Lottery

Mersey Docks And Harbour Company