House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Mar 1990

Mr. Skinner : The hon. Gentleman is applauding the way that Tory Members stopped the Bill to help nuclear test veterans. Now we know. He is a Government Whip, justifying the tactics used by his hon. Friends to stop the Bill going through. These people fought for their country and suffered out in the Pacific, but he is applauding the actions of those Tory Members who stopped the Bill. Although the uprating is to be supported, such provisions should be extended to other victims.

Is the Minister satisfied that all the asbestos has been removed from the Houses of Parliament? There have been reports that it is still being removed, and I should like him to check that. Thousands of people work here --not just Members of Parliament. I am not worried about them. We cannot call that work. We are talking about real workers, the people who have to clock on and clock off.

I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) who said that £41,000 is not really a lot of money, and I fully agree with him. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said the same. We can get carried away with figures if we are not careful. Compare that £41,000 with the amount of money that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer has just got for working for a bank for two days--£200, 000. The Government talk as though a £41,000 lump sum is a lot of money. There is no doubt that when that sum is taken into account the miners will have to pay the full poll tax, and all the other so-called "means-tested" benefits will also be affected.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford mentioned the reduced earnings allowance, and I think that it is important that we take that on board--not that the reduced earnings allowance is as good as a special hardship allowance. Many of our friends in the mining industry have suffered because of the change from the

Column 695

special hardship to the reduced earnings allowance, and I want the Minister to give an assurance that he will consider bringing those benefits into the same category.

The case of people who fall below the 10 per cent. limit should also be considered. The hon. Member for Caernarfon spoke about the 10 per cent. minimum ; it is one of the problems we have come up against with pneumoconiosis. Although this is a separate measure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford said, to a large extent it was built upon the pneumoconiosis settlement made earlier under a Labour Government. A hell of a lot of people are excluded because the pneumoconiosis medical panel says that they fall below 10 per cent. and cannot get anything, and for years they do not get anything. I would like that 10 per cent. limit to be reduced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) also referred to the problem, and mentioned the case of Arthur Morton and all the rest. It is easy for a doctor who is far away from the subject, and a member of a panel--he is paid a tidy sum to sit on that panel--to say, "Sorry--9 per cent.," or 8 per cent. or whatever. He may say, "We agree that you have dust, but you do not have enough." It is high time that we went below 10 per cent.--it has been around for too long. We should recommend that payments are made for people who have a level below that figure and that the panel's recommendations are seriously reviewed.

Hon. Members have referred to emphysema and other causes of chest complaints--I think that the hon. Member for Caernarfon mentioned it ; he played a significant part in getting the Act passed. Had the then Government extended the Act to somewhere in Northern Ireland, we might still be in office. Who knows?

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford mentioned a doctor's report from south Wales. That doctor was writing--a few years ago--about coal dust, and the research that was done on opencast mining. No Government have accepted that someone can get payments for working in opencast coal mines. People who have worked in slate quarries can get payments, but there has been no case in which an opencast coal worker has come under the legislation. Why? I suppose they argue that, by and large, opencast mines are worked for only a few months or a couple of years, although there are cases where they have lasted longer.

I want an investigation into opencast workings, with a view to workers affected in that industry being brought under the legislation because we now have hundreds, possibly thousands, of opencast sites in Britain. My guess is that there have been very few cases--if any--of opencast workers claiming benefit under this order, or the other one, but my guess is that a hell of a lot of cases could come under it. I should like the Minister to consider the evidence on opencast mining. I am trying to think of the name of the doctor in south Wales who produced it ; we have used it in opencast inquiries. I also think that he should consider reducing the 10 per cent. criterion to 5 per cent., so that more people are included. That is no big deal when the top whack is £41,000. Finally, I ask him to check on this building to see whether there is still an asbestos problem.

Column 696

11.15 pm

Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : Tonight the Minister is hearing the voices of experience. He should not look at me in that way ; the voices of experience are crossing the Chamber to make him understand exactly how we feel.

Nevertheless, we welcome what the Minister has said. The increase is a step in the right direction, and I hope that it will be made annually in future. Inflation is rocketing under the present Government, and is likely to continue to do so. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the young Whip--the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon)--to yawp from his seat ; this is experience talking. Conservative Members talk about Arthur Scargill, but if they had worked in the pits years ago they would not have a smile on their face. Arthur Scargill did a first-class job as a full-time official in Yorkshire, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when he was president of the Derbyshire branch of the NUM.

Mr. Fallon : Speak up for Libya.

Mr. Haynes : I do not know why Conservative Members keep on talking about Libya and Gaddafi and Scargill ; we are talking about pneumoconiosis tonight. I am a bit surprised at their behaviour. That little lad, the hon. Member for Darlington, ought to be sent for by her at No. 10 and given a ticking off : Whips and Parliamentary Private Secretaries are supposed to keep their mouths shut in the Chamber.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover knows what he is talking about : he did a first-class job as president of the Derbyshire miners. He was a working president. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on the case that he put. We have yet to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) has to say, but no doubt we shall find it an education. My hon. Friend has worked both as a miner and on the management side, so he really knows the subject from A to Z--as does my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), who has been chairing the Employment Bill Committee, and who has also worked on both sides of the industry. The same applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond).

The National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers has done a first-class job in representing its members. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has had to speak on something new to him, as it came up only in his Saturday surgery. Nor do I wish to leave out my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). He has learnt a lot since he became a Member of Parliament. That was obvious when he presented his case at the Dispatch Box. He will do the same tomorrow in the Standing Committee on the Employment Bill. My hon. Friend referred to the doctor, the consultant and the panel. I am sick to death of the general practitioner telling the patient that because he has pneumoconiosis he will send him to a consultant at the district general hospital. The consultant agrees with the doctor, so the patient goes before the panel. Its members get a nice old rake-off for doing the job. They decide that the extent of the disease is below 10 per cent. That must be looked into, because after that patient's case has been turned down he may die within six months. That has happened many times. The post mortem examination then reveals that the extent of the disease can be as high as 50 or 60 per cent.

Column 697

The so-called specialists on the panel are not doing their job properly. They want their backsides kicking. I am waiting for the Minister to get up and say that he will do the kicking. Some of these people are not getting a fair deal. I accept that some of them are, but the others are not getting what they are entitled to. They have to die before people find out that they were entitled to what they had asked for.

Mr. James Lamond : My hon. Friend's point is also correct in the case of byssinosis victims. A general practitioner diagnoses byssinosis ; the consultant does the same ; the panel turns down the victim ; he dies ; the post mortem is byssinosis. I wonder whether the panel believes that it must turn down a certain percentage of cases, just to show that it is doing its job. However, it ought to remember that before men and women come before it, they have had to persuade at least two medical practitioners-- the consultant and their own doctor--that they are suffering from byssinosis. People are not coming in off the street, hoping to be diagnosed as having byssinosis. They have to go through certain procedures before they come before the panel. Almost 100 per cent. of the people who go before the panel must have the disease that they claim to suffer from.

Mr. Haynes : I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. There is a flipping scandal here and it has got to be looked into. People are not being treated properly. All that is related to what I keep telling the Minister about pit inspectors. There are not enough of them to see that the job is being done properly underground.The example I give is that of working in a heading where there is a fan. As the heading advances, they use air bagging to keep up the work at the front. When the fan breaks down, or if it does not work properly, the miners gobble dust into their insides.

That is why they get pneumoconiosis. Inspectors are not on the job to see that it is being carried out properly. Those men should be withdrawn. As a works pit inspector, I should withdraw them. I made that clear to the Minister, and I am proud of it. A trade union official must look after the individuals he represents, otherwise he is not doing his job properly. I want the Minister to grab hold of that fact and to remember it when we are in Committee tomorrow. I have made my points. I hope that the Minister will respond properly.

11.24 pm

Mr. Allen McKay (Barnsley, West and Penistone) : I shall start where my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) left off, on opencasting. There is a report about a Dr. Thomas who has a practice in Glenheath. Dr. Thomas has been involved in an investigation of the high incidence of dust-related diseases, particularly among women and children. The investigation into Dr. Thomas's practice seems rather strange, particularly as it was instigated by the Secretary of State for Wales, when it was discovered that the practice was spending far too much according to the guidelines and compared with other practices in the area. That brings us back to the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, which does not take such matters into consideration.

Column 698

The Ministry carried out an investigation of why the male population did not suffer from the dust-related diseases which affected the women and children in the area. It came across the startling fact that the men no longer worked in the area, so they spent between eight and 12 hours elsewhere, while the women and children spent the whole day in the area. The investigation concluded that they were being affected by airborne dust from opencast mining, and much investigation is still to be done.

The 8 per cent. uprating is in line with inflation this month, although that may not be the case next month, and it would be churlish of us not to welcome it. However, I wish to raise one or two points which may have been mentioned before.

The amount of compensation reduces according to the age of the claimant. The logic of that is that a younger person has longer to live and will experience more difficulties as he gets older. At the same time, the older the sufferer, the more looking after he needs. The person looking after him bears the brunt of it. I know that from first-hand experience, because my father died of pneumoconiosis. I saw him struggle from the time he was assessed--he ended up with 100 per cent. pneumoconiosis--and I saw my mother looking after him. That trumatic experience affected the entire family.

It is necessary to look at the lower end of the scale. The older a person gets, the more looking after he needs and the more strain that puts on the carer, so more compensation should be paid. Although I see the logic in it, it is wrong to reduce compensation to such an extent lower down the scale. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover said, at the top of the scale a person aged 37 with 100 per cent. pneumoconiosis would receive £41,000 and that is peanuts. Therefore, it is necessary to look again at the scale and the amount of compensation awarded.

The Government are wrong to phase out the reduced earnings allowance. Many Opposition Members have had experience of men struggling to do a job that they were clearly incapable of doing, purely and simply because of their economic situation. They knew full well that, if they left the job, they would lose a lot of money. The reduced earnings allowance or the hardship allowance cushioned that effect, so that people could be encouraged to leave the work that they should not be doing and move into different work.

I looked at one of the old forms the other day ; it referred to compensation for life. It said nothing about compensation being reduced when the claimant reached the age of 65 or being phased out. It was compensation for life. It was compensation while sufferers were working to make up their reduced earnings, and it was also compensation when they had finished working to make up the amount of money that they should have saved but could not save because they had to leave the job early. The Government are wrong to remove the reduced earnings allowance.

A valid argument against the 10 per cent. rule has been made. Sufferers who are diagnosed as having 8 per cent. pneumoconiosis and 20 per cent. emphysema are not paid compensation. Only after they have died and their lungs have been examined are the effects of emphysema seen. Compensation should be paid for emphysema and related diseases. Despite scientific studies, emphysema is not regarded as an industrial disease. The clear evidence is that it is an industrial disease. It should be recognised as such, and proper compensation should be paid.

Column 699

Many miners suffering from pneumoconiosis have had to leave work. They cannot burn solid fuel in their homes. British Coal recognised that by paying them cash in lieu for alternative fuels. The Government take into account the money that a miner, his widow or his family receives and reduce his housing and welfare benefit accordingly. A test case was taken to a tribunal, which ruled against the Government. It said that the Government are wrong to take cash in lieu into account. The Government are likely to appeal. They should not be appealing ; they should be considering how much money they owe those people. That money should be paid immediately, and retrospective payments should be considered.

11.31 pm

Mr. Nicholls : I am grateful to hon. Members for acknowledging that benefits have been uprated in line with inflation, as they have been almost every year since the Pneumoconiosis etc, (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 came into force.

I join the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) in paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), who was responsible for bringing that Act to a successful conclusion. As I recall, he did so against the findings of the Pearson commission. One can speculate on the efforts that the right hon. Gentleman must have made in achieving that success, bearing in mind the commission's recommendation. That Act is operated in precisely the same way as under the last Labour Government. We argue across the Dispatch Box about other upratings, but we have no argument about this one. The hon. Member for Stretford mentioned asbestos. He said that he and I are old enough to consider the working lives of a generation. We have learnt much about asbestos over the past 20 or 30 years. It was always realised that it was dangerous, but we continue to find out just how dangerous it was. There is a strict regime under the asbestos regulations of 1983 and 1985 and the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987. Without being complacent, there is every reason to believe that we have achieved the right control. Hon. Members referred to the amount of compensation that is payable. Uniquely, the compensation scheme does not depend on having to prove negligence. That is a useful aspect of the scheme. In introducing that legislation, the then Minister of State, Department of Employment acknowledged that it was very much in a class of its own. Negligence does not have to be proved. That is a significant advantage, which means that one is not subjected to the vagaries of litigation and having to prove a case. I make no criticism in saying that it is easy to relate cases in which massive amounts of compensation have been awarded, but there is a danger of trying to relate the sums awarded under this scheme to what might be awarded in litigation.

I accept that the sums involved are not massive. The point has been made in this debate and last year that mere money cannot begin to compensate for the misery, tragedy and horrific times that families face when a loved one dies. I am sure that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) agrees that this matter goes far beyond the issue of money. Having said that, I accept that ultimately we are simply talking about money, and it is right that we should consider the sums that can be awarded.

Column 700

I was asked about the average compensation. It has been about £8, 000 in the current year. The maximum could be as much as £41,849 ; the maximum for dependants would be rather lower, at £18,996. The sums are not derisory, although they are not massive. We are dealing with something that is much more basic than mere money, as hon. Members on both sides of the House accept.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) asked whether it would be possible, having obtained an amount under the Act, to proceed against a company that had been restored to life, albeit briefly, under the Companies Act 1989. According to my reading of the Act, there would be nothing to stop a claim being made against a company in that way, even if a sum had been obtained under the legislation. It is right to point out, however, that the converse is not true. If a judgment against a company has been obtained or a compromise has been reached in some way, that would preclude a claim under the Act. In a sense, that is a point of detail which is well known by those who understand the structure of the legislation. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) mentioned the possibility of a periodic review. Like the hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Lamond), he said that, because disability can increase as one gets older, it should be taken into account in considering the low amounts that are now given to those at the lower end of the scale. I understand why the case was put in that way. However, if after the adjudication there were a periodic review, dependent on the person's health at any given time, the scheme would come to a complete stop. In civil litigation, it is a

well-established principle, for obvious reasons, that, once a claim is settled, it stands, except in rare circumstances.

I accept the concern of the hon. Member for Caernarfon. When the scheme was devised, the intention was to weight the lower levels of disability to reflect that fact. The hon. Gentleman may say that that is an imprecise measure. I accept that it must be. The structure of the Act ensures that the lower ratings are weighted to take account of that.

The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) clearly has a personal acquaintance with a constituent who has experienced a number of these problems. I want to deal as explicitly as I can with the hon. Gentleman's comments. I am sure that he recognises a phrase used when civil servants brief Ministers on these occasions and which seems to satisfy them sometimes--"It is not my responsibility", but the responsibility of just about anyone else. The work of the boards on respiratory diseases is not the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. However, the whole House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman understands to be the findings of that research. I accept that he feels very strongly about the matter.

I give the hon. Gentleman, as well as other hon. Members, an undertaking that I shall write to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and draw his attention to this debate and, specifically, to the concern of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), at what--to put it at its lowest--they regard as the unsatisfactory circumstances in which a GP and a consultant make one diagnosis but the man on the board comes to a different view. As I do not want to mislead hon. Members, I have to say that I can pass no judgment on whether, in a particular case, the diagnosis of

Column 701

the consultant and the GP should be weighed in the balance against the decision of the board and found wanting. None the less, if such information came to the notice of myself as a constituency Member of Parliament it would concern me. However, as I have said, I shall write to my right hon. and learned Friend to draw to his attention the comments that have been made.

Mr. Spearing : I am grateful to the Minister for his encouraging words. The nub of the problem is that the boards are not always willing to publicise the scientific criteria that they use in evaluating any case, to ensure that it is seen as being in line with demonstrable scientific advance and discovery. Unless there is congruity in that respect, there will be cause for concern. Perhaps the Minister will point that fact out to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

Mr. Nicholls : Clearly, boards should be up to date, but I cannot pass judgment on particular cases. However, I accept at once that that is what the hon. Gentleman's research has led him to conclude. I well understand his concern, and I shall certainly draw it--not just formally but quite specifically--to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

I should like to make two points that may come as some reassurance to Opposition Members. Members have commented across the Floor on the working of the reduced earnings allowance. That is certainly the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. However, I am advised that it has no bearing whatsoever on the working of this Act, although I accept that these occasions can be useful for bringing in tangential matters. A number of hon. Members referred to the position when someone's disability is assessed at less than 10 per cent. or, for that matter, 14 per cent. The guidance issued by the Department on the working of the 1979 Act puts the question :

"What do you do about claims to the DHSS?"

The answer is :

"We need to confirm that : your husband or wife got disablement benefit or disablement allowance because of the disease or that the only reason he or she did not is that the level of disability was below 14 per cent."

Again I am advised that, in relation to this Act, the mere fact that the level of disability was found to be lower than 10 per cent. does not preclude the making of a payment.

Mr. Wigley : Surely the Minister will accept that, in case after case, boards, having found a little dust, will not make a 10 per cent. finding if there is no pneumoconiosis. Such experience is very widespread.

Mr. Nicholls : The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech. As I said, I shall draw his comments in their entirety to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

Having said what I am not responsible for, and passed it to others, I refer to a point that the hon. Member for Caernarfon made about a person who has had a number of employers, the proposition being that all of them would have to have gone out of business before a claim was made. I am advised that there is no hard-and-fast rule to that effect, but obviously the hon. Member has experience of this matter. The working of that part of the assessment is

Column 702

the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and it is a matter that we shall certainly look at.

The hon. Members for Barnsley, West and Penistone and for Caernarfon asked whether emphysema--and, for that matter, bronchitis--should be classified in the same way. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which advises the Secretary of State in these matters, reported in February 1988 that the link had not been made out conclusively enough for the diseases to be included in this category of disablement. The matter is kept under review, and this takes us back to the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South about the need to ensure that boards are as fully up to date as they should be. I cannot tell the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone that the change that he seeks is around the corner, but the matter is certainly kept closely under review.

I hope that in this relatively short but comprehensive debate I have been able to satisfy the House about the motives underlying the uprating of 8 per cent. while also undertaking to ensure that specific matters are drawn to the attention of those responsible.

Mr. James Lamond : I am especially anxious about the case of someone who has one former employer still in business. Is the Minister saying that there is nothing hard and fast in the regulations and that he can re- examine the matter, perhaps with a view to disregarding short periods of employment with one employer who is still in existence or to ensuring that if a period of employment represents only a small proportion of a person's working life, it can be disregarded? Is he saying that he will consider that point?

Mr. Nicholls : What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that, as I understand it, there is no scheme or tariff which says that, if not all the employers have gone out of business, one simply cannot claim under the Act. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to admit that somewhere along the line a judgment of Solomon will have to be made about how many employers can be in existence and for how long. I cannot pass any judgment about the matter this evening, but I am concerned at the hon. Gentleman's view--even allowing for what I have just said--that the regulations are being interpreted far too strictly or stringently. I do not have to draw that to the attention of anybody, other than my Department. Without passing judgment on it now, I shall certainly look into the matter and come back to the hon. Gentleman.

This has been a short but useful debate, and I hope that I have been able to offer hon. Members some reassurance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Column 703

Town and Country Planning Scotland

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.-- [Mr. Chapman.] Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(5) (Standing Committees on European Community Documents).

Health Rules (Products of Animal Origin)

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9934/89 relating to health rules for products of animal origin ; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that any Council regulation resulting from this proposal contributes to effective and efficient hygiene controls throughout the Community.-- [Mr. Chapman.]

Question agreed to.

Column 704

Radio 2 (Broadcasting Frequencies)

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

11.47 pm

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare) : Once upon a time, the BBC broadcast the Home Service, the Light Programme and the Third Programme. I wish to raise the subsequent fate of the Light Programme, which used to be broadcast on long wave, 1500 m and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister, who has kindly come to the House tonight to answer this debate is, either too young to remember it, or--being a man of superior intellect- -never chose to listen to it.

The BBC made some major changes when establishing Radios 1, 2, 3 and 4, and Radio 2 finished up on two medium wavebands while Radio 4 was allocated the long waveband. In addition, all four channels broadcast on FM frequencies.

That is the situation that still prevails, but as the House will know, all is to be altered in the near future. This follows the Home Secretary's decision, announced on 19 January 1988, that two medium-wave frequencies should be reassigned from the BBC. The BBC's response is to confine its broadcasting, other than on FM, to 198 kHz for Radio 4 or its equivalent, and the existing medium-wave frequencies used by Radio 2 for a channel that will broadcast a new sport and educational programme. In addition, the present channels 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be allocated FM frequencies.

It is not the purpose of this debate to argue against the Government's handling of frequencies, since those decisions have now been made. However, I must observe that the Home Office department that deals with radio frequencies does not enjoy a high reputation with those who are knowledgeable in such highly technical matters. It is generally recognised that this country came out very badly in the previous international conference dealing with the allocation of frequencies. I remember the grief of the Overseas Service of the BBC when 1300 m was up for grabs and it ended up in the hands of the Irish, who at the time had no great direct use for it. The second long-wave frequency that has been allocated to the United Kingdom is unusable for far too much of the day to be of practical use. However, once again, it is no use raking over the past.

My purpose tonight is to enter a special plea for those of us who, when getting up in the morning, driving into work, doing the household chores or as a background to routine jobs, like jolly music with cheerful presenters to accompany the task in hand.

About 15 million people listen to Radio 2 every week. More than 1 million of them do not have wireless sets that can receive FM. Either they will be deprived of their favourite programmes or they will be involved in considerable expense, through no fault of their own, when the BBC makes that ill-advised change.

I must acknowledge that, at just over 50 years old, I think that I am about the average age for a Radio 2 listener--although, when it has so many listeners, that must be a fairly wide spectrum. I did not have the privilege of catching Mr. Speaker's eye when the White Paper on broadcasting was debated, but I have heard few voices raised in this place on behalf of that massive audience.

I admire the "Today" programme on Radio 4, but of necessity it is dominated by politics and journalism. In the

Column 705

wonderful days when Terry Wogan hosted the morning programme on Radio 2, I had a firm preference for coming to work without the background knowledge of the day's events but with a smile on my face and a song in my heart as a result of that first-class show. When he moved to the paradise of television, the excellent Ken Bruce was brought in to succeed him, but he has now been moved to a later spot, and I mostly miss his witty and pleasing programme.

I am well aware that criticising Derek Jameson will probably cost me my seat, but he epitomises all that is wrong in the management of Radio 2. Employed on the strength of his accent and his previous experience as a newspaper editor, his sheer banality jars this sensitive listener back to the "Today" programme with alacrity. There at least they take the trouble to pronounce place names correctly and do not indulge in instant judgments based on brief newspaper reports. Lord Reith must spin in his grave from 7.30 am to 9.30 am, except when the charming Vivienne Stewart succeeds in making the weather report sound interesting. Jimmy Young's potted politics, David Jacobs's smooth and professional lunch-time programme and Gloria Hunniford's chirpy interviews with interesting personalities speed us through the day.

Tempted as I am, there is not time to comment individually on every one of the items in the daily routine. However, I must just say that, although Brian Matthews is an excellent interviewer, his "Round Midnight" programme is inappropriate for the hour. When I complained, I was told that it was very popular with the literary and theatrical world, which is hardly surprising since they are the only people who are interviewed. Suitably relaxing music is what is required, and I hope that is what we shall shortly be getting.

I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister has no direct responsibility for this matter, but corresponding with the BBC has become increasingly fruitless. I once complained to the controller of BBC 2 about the nature of the religious programme on Sunday mornings. I received the riposte that clearly the only time that satisfied me was Saturday mornings. But they have ruined even that now. The only positive response came from Roger Royle, who, concerned at my suggestion that the list of interviewees for his programme showed political bias, discussed the matter with me. I was grateful to him for his trouble and for his satisfactory explanation.

The Minister may ask why, if I am so critical of Radio 2, I listen to that channel. That point goes to the very nub of my being in the Chamber tonight. The problem is that there is no alternative for those of us who like that type of programme. Although those who live in London have the chance of listening to Capital Gold, if our musical tastes happen to lie between Radios 1 and 3, there really is no alternative.

The hierarchy of the BBC, although admitting to the size of the audience and recognising the requirements to provide a

musical-cum-news-cum-documentary programme, has now driven the final nail into the coffin of Radio 2 by condemning it to VHF only. The broadcasting research section of the House of Commons Library published a most perceptive analysis of aspects of this matter, including the reaction of those who would be

Column 706

willing to listen to FM. It is significant that, of all those whose favourite station is Radio 2, half were reluctant to do so. Although coverage of the country by VHF transmitters will be better by the end of the year, large numbers of people will be unable to receive light music programmes, and that matter should concern the Government. Although many car radios have the ability to receive FM transmissions, because they are largely receivable only on "line of sight" it is likely that, on any long-distance journeys, constant retuning is necessary. That is not only tedious but dangerous, although, in this context, I must say that there are gaps in existing transmissions, and I find it necessary to have both Radio 2 frequencies preset on my radio and to choose between them according to location.

I also make a plea for those who do not receive FM radio at all. This morning, one of my hon. Friends from a Yorkshire constituency mentioned a large group of people who, shrouded by the hills, still do not receive FM transmissions for any of the available programmes. The relatively tiny audience for Radio 3 is extremely articulate and knows very well how to express its views to the BBC, which obliges with a ration of classical music, much of which is so modern as to be intolerable, but the BBC will never face the intellectual barrage that would shoot at it if it were to decline to provide the current fare. The Radio 2 audience does not seem to get the same consideration, in spite of its numbers. Perhaps I should add that, even now, Radio 2 carries a considerable amount of light classical music, which is much appreciated, and the concept that it is nothing but extracts from "The Sound of Music" or pop songs from the 1950s is totally untrue.

The amount of current pop music that is available on radio is quite out of proportion to the needs of the population. My constituency can receive no fewer than three independent radio stations, plus BBC Radio Bristol and Radio 1, all of which seem to offer a similar fare, although I must confess that I find the music so awful and so loud that I am no great expert at the better bits that I am sure those radio stations serve up. Why the BBC should continue to insist on the national broadcasting of that music on Radio 1 while at the same time maintaining its local stations when there is a substantial local commercial alternative remains beyond me and, I should think, most of those who pay for licences.

The new channel that is proposed to take the existing Radio 2 frequencies is to broadcast a mixture of education and sport. That sounds a fairly self -constraining recipe, particularly as schools have recently been encouraged to buy FM radios. What could be more suitable for sport than the use of VHF frequencies in different locations, enabling local interests to be catered for, as well as national occasions?

I repeat that 15 million people listen to Radio 2 every week, many of whom are not only worried by the deterioration of standards and the general entertainment level of Radio 2 but find the latest technical change to move the station from medium wave the last straw.

I hope that, while washing his hands of responsibility, my hon. Friend the Minister will take my criticisms to heart and encourage the BBC, even at this eleventh hour, to review that decision. When the BBC learns the true depth of feeling about the decision, it will simply blame the Government's decision about wavelengths. We have enough burdens to carry at present.

Column 707

12 midnight

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston- super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for bringing this subject to the attention of the House. As well as focusing on the particular issues that he raised, the debate provides a useful opportunity to take stock of general developments in radio that are relevant to his theme.

The Broadcasting Bill, which is currently in Committee, where the radio provisions were debated last week, is particularly apposite. Even though the Bill is directly concerned largely with independent television and radio, the changes that it introduces form an important part of the background to what is happening in BBC radio. The Bill provides for a new Radio Authority, which will be empowered to offer licences for three new national independent radio services, and, if the demand is there, up to several hundred independent local radio stations. They will vary from the scale of the city and countywide stations that already exist, to community of interest stations, for example, catering to particular musical tastes, and smaller stations covering towns, possibly country areas and parts of cities, for example where the ethnic minorities live.

Our aim is to remove as many obstacles as we can to new services being offered to the listener. The Government set up the new Radio Authority in January in shadow form. We expect the new radio stations to come on air over the next few years. Each will be required to offer a distinctive service not already provided by existing independent radio services. In that way we hope not just to increase the number of services, but to ensure that real choice is provided for the listener.

The shadow Radio Authority placed advertisements in the national press-- The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph --this morning, and similar advertisements are appearing elsewhere. The authority is inviting people to submit letters of intent declaring an interest in applying for a radio licence together with some background information and other details. That will give the authority a good idea of the nature, scale and location of demand to run services. It can then start drawing up plans for advertising specific licences around the country, for services that people want.

The new services will need to be introduced progressively over several years, bearing in mind both the administrative work involved and the spectrum available--a point that I shall return to. Some progress is already being made under existing legislation, through the Independent Broadcasting Authority's incremental radio scheme. Twenty-three contracts have been advertised for stations of a new and distinctive character. Some cater for ethnic minorities ; some for more general communities of interest.

In London, for example, a jazz station started yesterday and Melody Radio, a light music station, is on the way. In the west country, a new station is planned for this year in Bristol, called FTP--"For The People". That is just the first of many that will come on air. I refer more specifically to the BBC and the points that my hon. Friend made. The new services should provide it with more competition and widen choice for the listener. But the new services need the spectrum on which to broadcast ; and the BBC has always had a dominant share

Column 708

of the frequencies. That was only proper when it was providing most of the services ; but new providers will be entering the field. So, at the Government's request, the BBC has agreed to end the present practice of "simulcasting"--broadcasting the same service on more than one frequency at the same time. It has chosen to do that--and we have agreed--by concentrating Radios 1 to 4 on the FM bands. That is because of the generally higher quality of the signal, and its capacity for stereo and for RDS--radio data systems, which aid tuning and which should help my hon. Friend with his car radio problem and ensure that he does not have to keep tuning the knobs as he travels along.

As part of the change, from August this year Radio 2 will no longer be transmitted on both FM and AM--the medium wave. The BBC has asked to retain one national AM frequency--currently used for Radio 2--and use it to provide a new, fifth national network--Radio 5, which will focus on sport and education.

Radio 2 attracts a large proportion of older listeners, as well as my hon. Friend, and many of them currently listen to it on the medium wave. The BBC recognises that and has accordingly launched an FM listening campaign. That includes encouragement to people over the air to retune to FM, and supplementary leaflets and other activities. It is also rapidly building FM transmitters to bring FM services to those areas that have none at present. I hope that that gives some reassurance to my hon. Friend, who was rightly concerned about the present gaps in coverage.

As my hon. Friend said, some Radio 2 listeners do not yet have radio sets capable of receiving FM. They are a minority--but I agree that they are an important one. Although sets capable of receiving FM can be purchased from around £10, I know that some will find even that difficult to manage. The BBC has sought to take a constructive approach to that. It is, for example, encouraging people to buy their elderly relatives FM radios as presents.

Although change brings inconvenience, the Independent Broadcasting Authority did some research last year, which showed that already over 90 per cent. of listeners had access to at least one FM radio. That figure will have grown over the past 12 months, following the recent introduction of Radio 1 on FM. That change, incidentally, has benefited Radio 2 listeners because they no longer have to share their FM frequency except for the "Top 40" on Sunday afternoons. From the beginning of April, the BBC expects Radio 2 to be on FM for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

My hon. Friend rightly said that the quality of Radio 2 is a BBC rather than a Government responsibility. However, I am sure that the BBC will note and ponder carefully both my hon. Friend's praise and his criticism of its output. I am certain that it will take encouragement from the fact that he is a frequent interested and discriminating listener, if occasionally--as we all are--an exasperated one.

I conclude with two general points. The Government's policy is to introduce more competition into broadcasting, in the interest of the viewer and the listener. I believe that that will not only offer more services to listen to, but will provide a healthy stimulus for the BBC itself. But I should like also to pay tribute to the immense service that the BBC generally--and BBC radio in particular--has already

Next Section

Home Page