Commons Sitting of 3 December 2002

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    NHS Legal Costs
    Mr. Clive Soley: What estimate he has made of legal costs to the NHS incurred by patients taking legal action in the last five years. [82616]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): The NHS Litigation Authority has only collected information on legal costs incurred by the NHS in respect of all clinical negligence claims since April 2002.
    Mr. Soley: In view of the amount of money and time taken, including that of professional staff in those cases, could we not find a way in which people can avoid suing, possibly by having a no-fault system? Alternatively, my hon. Friend may remember that some months ago a Mr. and Mrs. Maude chose not to sue, but put their money into a charitable fund, which was used to set up an online diagnostic service. My own constituent Mrs. Braganza also wanted to give money to a hospital despite the fact that it had made a mistake. We need to find a way of doing so that would alleviate both costs and time.
    Mr. Lammy: I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. He may be aware that I was a clinical negligence lawyer before coming to the House—[interruption] I therefore know a little about the matter. The chief medical officer is currently reviewing clinical negligence and will report to Ministers shortly. As with all the options, a no-fault compensation scheme is one of the many things that he is considering.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Does the Minister agree that prevention is better than cure, particularly in the national health service, and that in the past the role of community health councils has been extremely helpful in raising patients' concerns before legal action may have been necessary? Will he tell the House what measures the Government are taking to ensure the
    736
    transfer of skills, knowledge and experience of staff and members of community health councils to the new structures for patient and public involvement in health?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Lady will be aware that we are setting up the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, which will cover patients forums in all our primary care trusts across the country. We set up patient advice and liaison services to liaise with our constituents in hospitals, and a measure to establish a new inspectorate is going through Parliament. We are in close dialogue with the chair and new chief executive of the commission and I hope that I can make announcements shortly about the interim arrangements.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Does my hon. Friend intend to make an assessment of the cost of needle stick injuries to the NHS? Will he consider introducing a directive to encourage hospitals to follow Barnsley district general hospital in having a needle stick injury strategy?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend raises a serious issue, which the Department keeps under review. Guidance has recently been issued, but he is right to raise what is an important issue in all our hospitals.

    Children's Hospices
    Mr. Mark Simmonds: If he will make a statement on levels of funding for children's hospices. [82617]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Funding levels for children's hospices are determined through negotiation between hospices and primary care trusts. In addition, the new opportunities fund is considering applications from children's hospices to undertake a range of projects in support of children with life-threatening illnesses, for which funding starts next year.
    Mr. Simmonds: I am grateful for the Minister's response. Despite the Government's rhetoric on palliative care, is it not true that only £4 million of the £50 million payout allocated by the Government has reached the hospice movement? Even more disgracefully, in many areas of England, is it not true that no moneys have been received whatsoever? If that is coupled with the employers' national insurance increase, which will impact on hospices from April next year, when will the Government get their act together and what will they do to expedite the payment of that well-deserved and much needed funding?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman's question was about children's hospices, but he has clearly asked questions relating to adult specialist palliative care. I am delighted to bring him up to date, as his information is a little out of date. He will know that the Secretary of State announced an extra £10 million of funding for this year, in addition to the £50 million of funding that will be going in next year. If he was in touch with his voluntary

    737
    sector organisations, he would know that they are delighted to be working in partnership with us to make sure that we get a new funding mechanism.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows of the reputation of Derian house in Chorley and the care that is provided there. However, children and young people go there from all over the north-west and beyond, and it is difficult to get primary care trusts from a wider area to contribute money. Finance is always a problem. What help and support can the Under-Secretary provide?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right. I am well aware of the excellent services of the hospice to which he referred. He is also right that because hospices provide services for children from a wide area, we need to get PCTs working together. New funding from the new opportunities fund can help to pump-prime new and innovative services, often for palliative care at home and in the community as well as in hospices.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: The Government's
    "overall contribution to children's hospices is unacceptably low…Certain hospices have had their funds eroded…There has been a steady regression of funding for Children's Hospices since 1997."
    They are not my words but those of Barbara Gelb of the Association of Children's Hospices. Are not the Government letting down the most vulnerable children in our society?
    Ms Blears: Not at all. The Government are absolutely committed to helping children with life-threatening illnesses. That does not simply mean hospice care, although that is an important component. We are also dramatically increasing the carer's grant, which helps disabled children. The Diana Community Children's Nursing Network operates throughout the country and provides community nurses to help children with a range of life-threatening conditions. The Government take such an important issue extremely seriously.
    Ian Lucas: Is not it clear that there needs to be a step change in our approach to funding the hospice movement? The level of care and the specialisms that hospices provide nowadays mean that they can no longer rely solely on voluntary contributions. Can we please have a more planned and integrated approach that involves the NHS in the provision of hospice services?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend is right. We have embarked on exactly that course. Producing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines means that, at long last, we will have a proper service for palliative care. In the past, palliative care has been on the outside of the NHS. We aim to ensure that it is as much a part of the NHS as the rest of our treatment services.

    Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Trust
    Mr. James Gray: What discussions he has had about funding for the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Care Trust. [82618]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): At the request of my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), I met representatives of Avon and Wiltshire mental health care trust, the strategic health authority and local Members of Parliament on 29 October. The meeting enabled us to discuss both the financial pressures that confront the mental health care trust and national and local work to tackle the financial position.
    Mr. Gray: I attended that meeting, and it was deeply unsatisfactory. The mental health care trust and the other local PCTs are starting life with debt of £100 million that they inherited from previous organisations. They are trying to live within their means, but that will mean closures of beds at the Cameron mental health care ward in Chippenham, of the day care facility in Malmesbury and at Rowden Hill, and of the rehabilitation centre at Devizes. Does the Under-Secretary agree that there is precious little point in her paying out funds to the trust if they have to be paid back in debt repayment? Is not there a strong argument for considering a moratorium on debt repayment so that the trusts can start their lives sensibly?
    Jacqui Smith: Clearly, it is important that local health services live within their means. I know that much work is happening locally in the hon. Gentleman's constituency to ensure that we safeguard services.
    Mr. Gray: Cuts.
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman mentions cuts, but the mental health care trust received 12.8 per cent. more income in 2002–03 than in 2001–02. That is why it has been able to improve services, with six more crisis resolution teams, eight more assertive outreach teams, at least 12 more community gateway staff and at least 14 more staff to give carers breaks. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to argue for more money now; he did not vote for it when he had the opportunity to do so.

    Hospital-acquired Infections
    Richard Ottaway: If he will make a statement on the incidence of hospital-acquired infections in the last 12 months. [82619]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Since April 2001, all acute NHS trusts have had to report methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus blood stream infections. The first year's data show that rates tend to be higher in specialist trusts and in the south and east of the country. Early next year, surveillance will be extended to other micro-organisms and adverse incidents associated with infection.
    Richard Ottaway: Up to 5,000 lives are lost each year through hospital-acquired infections. Are not the Government being extraordinarily complacent about

    739
    the matter? The figure is almost double the number of lives lost on the roads each year. Does not that show that all the spending announcements in the world do not add up to a row of beans if lives continue to be lost through inefficient procurement programmes of sterilisation and contamination equipment? They have been getting progressively slower. The Government should get a grip and act to improve matters.
    Mr. Hutton: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a serious problem. We should tackle it on three different levels. First, it is important that we start to monitor the rates of MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections; we are doing that for the first time this year. No previous Health Minister—Tory or Labour—has been able to tell the House what the rates of such infections are. That is our first port of call. Secondly, we need to get in additional resources to improve standards of cleanliness and hygiene in our hospitals. We are doing that: there will be £62 million for the clean hospital programme and a £200 million additional investment to improve sterilisation.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman, however, that this is not just about money. That is why the third strand of our work involves the chief medical officer and others working with the service to improve levels of performance and to spread best practice in regard to hygiene and cleanliness. That is the right way to do this. There is a problem, but we are trying to address it.
    Helen Jones: My right hon. Friend has rightly said that one of the keys to reducing MRSA infection is good hygiene on the wards. Does he not agree, therefore, that the disastrous privatisation of cleaning services under the previous Conservative Government seriously impeded efforts to tackle this problem? Will he tell the House how the agenda for change programme will facilitate involving cleaners and others in the ward team in raising the level of skills to remedy the problem?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree with my hon. Friend that the record of previous Conservative Administrations has not been anything to crow about. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway)—for whom I have a great deal of respect—to blame the Labour Government for problems relating to levels of cleanliness and hygiene. We have done more than previous Governments to tackle them, including—as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said—ending the disastrous experiment with compulsory competitive tendering, which had not improved levels of cleanliness in our hospitals. Agenda for change is a new pay modernisation framework for the NHS, which represents a significant step forward, particularly for low-paid workers, including cleaners. I hope that that will improve morale and retention among some of the most important workers in the national health service.
    Chris Grayling: Those are complacent words from the Minister, nearly six years into a Labour Government. According to a new report from University college London, nearly 12 per cent. of patients suffer from what it calls "adverse events" within
    740
    the NHS. That seems a long way from the Government's clean hospitals initiative. What actions is the Minister actually taking?
    Mr. Hutton: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. We look forward to further exchanges with him, although I hope that they will be of a better quality than the one that we have just heard. To be fair to him, however, I think that he is mixing up two issues. He is confusing adverse incidents—which include a much wider variety of potential harm that patients could experience in hospital, including operations that go wrong, and so on—with hospital-acquired infections. They are different issues. I tried to outline to the hon. Member for Croydon, South the three areas in which we are taking action to improve the problem of hospital-acquired infections. Because of the steps that we have taken, a Health Minister will, for the first time ever, be able to report to the House on whether we are making progress in tackling the problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a first step forward, but it is not the only step that we are taking. I have outlined fully all the steps that we are taking to deal with this problem. It is a serious one, and we are determined to get on top of it.
    Tony Wright: Will my right hon. Friend give us a little more information about how he is collecting this data? Two years ago, when my father died from a hospital-acquired infection, I was surprised to discover that there was no mention of that fact on the death certificate. Why do we not record on death certificates the fact that a hospital-acquired infection has been involved? Are the other kinds of data that my right hon. Friend is collecting sufficient to enable us to get to grips with this issue?
    Mr. Hutton: I am truly sorry to hear of my hon. Friend's loss, as I am sure that all hon. Members will be. The details that are recorded on a death certificate are, as I am sure he is aware, a matter for the coroner to decide. I understand that a review of those procedures is currently under way, however, and perhaps that is the right place in which to consider that problem. In relation to the data that we are currently record, it is true that, this year, we have been collecting data only about MRSA. Next year, however, we will extend the data collection to include salmonella, for example, and glyco-peptide-resistant enterococci. That is part and parcel of our attempt to extend the data collection so that we can be in a position to deal with the important issues that my hon. Friend and others have raised.
    Dr. Evan Harris: I commend the Minister on the data collection; that is clearly the first step, and he is right to say that it has not been done before. He described the hospital cleanliness programme as a means of driving down hospital-acquired infection. Is he aware, however, that, of the 19 measures that went into that programme, part of only one of them deals with issues that might reduce hospital-acquired infection—that is, cross-infection as opposed to issues of cleanliness? A survey carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) and other colleagues showed that 60 per cent. of those who responded found that they had insufficient

    741
    resources for infection control. Is not the Minister worried that some of the other targets that the Government are setting are taking resources away from infection control?
    Mr. Hutton: I do not think that that is a fair criticism. The hon. Gentleman, as I understand his position, is against pretty well any target of any kind for the NHS. He certainly knows how to spend more money, but he would be unable to account for any beneficial result of such expenditure. I agree, however, that it is clearly important to keep that whole area of work under review. I am not going to stand here for a second claiming that we have solved every problem—quite clearly, we have not. Removing such infections, particularly the avoidable ones, will be a long hard job. Remember, MRSA is resident in the community as a whole, and it is inevitable that it will come into hospitals as well. We have to focus on avoidable infection rates, which may be between 15 and 30 per cent. of the total, and working with the profession. The Chief Medical Officer is leading that work to find the right way forward, but concentrating on reducing waiting times in no way contradicts or gets in the way of reducing hospital-acquired infection rates.

    Smoking
    Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on further measures he proposes to combat smoking and tobacco use. [82620]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The measures that we have so far taken have helped over 200,000 smokers to quit. We will now make available extra resources to advertise the dangers of smoking and to extend help for people who want to give up.
    Andrew Mackinlay: Does the Secretary of State agree that the practise of smoking tobacco should be confined to consenting adults in private? Is it not time that he put pressure on his ministerial colleagues who are in charge of employment rights to protect, in particular, those people in the food and drink and entertainment industries, as well as others, who are obliged to endure and suffer the smoke of others? Will he ensure also that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Department for International Development are empowered to prevent British companies from trying to peddle that terrible drug among the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the world?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Clearly, smoking is the principal avoidable cause of death in our country—it kills about 120,000 people a year and is responsible for one death in five, so action across the piece is necessary to reduce it. He raises in particular the issue of workplace smoking, which is a genuine problem, although he will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive has been considering it, as have we. In the meantime, we have been trying to persuade employers, through our local tobacco control alliances, to take action locally. We want to encourage more of them, especially in the restaurant and pub business, either to make their environment smoke free or to at least make it clear to
    742
    consumers and workers where smoking is allowed. Many employers want to take such action. I agree that there is a lot more to do, but we are beginning to make real inroads into a real problem.
    Mr. John Baron: Given that the Government's own figures show that more and more young people are smoking, will the Secretary of State explain why the Government yesterday tried to block new European Union measures that will ban cigarette company sponsorship of Formula 1 a year earlier than planned? It appears to many that they were trying to help their friends in Formula 1 at the expense of the public's health.
    Mr. Milburn: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new post.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: He will be gone in two weeks.
    Mr. Milburn: I am getting some advice. Sometimes it is worth taking, the hon. Gentleman will find, although not from his own side. He started with a slight factual error, if I may say so, on the proportion of young people who are smoking. He may know that figures published today from the general household survey show that in 1996 about 13 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds were regular smokers. That had fallen to 10 per cent. by last year. Clearly, however, a lot more needs to be done to combat smoking, particularly among girls.
    Yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there was a European Council of Ministers in Brussels to discuss the draft tobacco directive. The case argued by the hon. Gentleman is not the case that I put. There were two problems with the Commission's tobacco directive. It was not strong enough, and it was not clear enough. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have tobacco-advertising legislation in our country—opposed, incidentally, by his party—which is all about banning not just tobacco advertising but tobacco promotion. As for the question of clarity, one thing I have learnt over the last five or six years is that the tobacco industry will be relentless in delaying and preventing any measures that are necessary to protect the public.
    Dr. Howard Stoate: I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to a reduction in smoking, and his work in making nicotine replacement therapy available to all NHS patients. That was a wonderful move. May I remind him, however, that 400 pupils are still dying every day in this country from tobacco-related diseases? The industry therefore needs to recruit 400 more young people a day, particularly teenagers, to this dreadful habit. What can my right hon. Friend do, in addition to what he is already doing, to discourage people from taking it up in the first place?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is right, and he speaks with some clinical experience and expertise. Four steps are necessary. First, we are now enacting the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill. From next spring, all tobacco advertising on hoardings and in the media will be banned, because we know that it is the recruiting sergeant for young people in particular. Secondly, from next year there will be stronger health warnings on

    743
    cigarette packets, and misleading doublespeak from the industry about certain products being "light" or "mild" will go. The strengthened health warnings will include warnings about the link between tobacco consumption and impotence. Thirdly, for the first time the Government will publish a list of the additives that go into every brand of cigarette, including everything from solvents to sweeteners. Fourthly and perhaps most important, in conjunction with the British Heart Foundation and the Cancer Research UK campaign, we will launch a £15 million advertising campaign pointing out the dangers of smoking.
    I think that those measures, together with the help we are already giving to the seven out of 10 smokers who say they want to quit, will make a real difference and, most important, will save lives.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome that news, but the Secretary of State expressed concern about the European directive. What action have he and the Government taken to put pressure on the European Community to stop subsidising the growth in tobacco exports from Greece—and in our own exports, which are adding to the plight of the developing world?
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely important point, which I should have made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate).
    The British Government at all levels continue to raise, in our discussions in Europe, the issue of subsidies for the tobacco industry, which must stop. As my hon. Friend said, they produce a product which, although legal, kills 120,000 of its consumers every year. It is therefore no surprise that the industry must recruit extra smokers. Eighty-three per cent. of smokers began smoking before they were 20. The industry claims that its advertising is not aimed at children and teenagers, but that is simply wrong. We know from evidence that the vast majority of brands most smoked by children are the most advertised. That is why we were right to introduce tough new anti-tobacco-advertising legislation.

    Meat Hygiene Service
    John Thurso: When he next plans to meet the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency to discuss the Meat Hygiene Service. [82621]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Ministers have regular meetings with the chairman, deputy chair and chief executive of the Food Standards Agency to discuss issues of mutual interest, including the Meat Hygiene Service.
    John Thurso: Is the Minister aware of the grave concern being expressed by vets throughout Scotland about the way in which the recent contract for official veterinary surgeons was awarded, and in particular about allegations that officials from the service pressurised vets by telephone into lowering their
    744
    tenders? Is not such horse trading posing a real threat to both the quality of the service and the quality of meat for human consumption?
    Ms Blears: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is absolutely vital that the Meat Hygiene Service puts quality first and has due regard to public health. He will know that the procurement process has been carried out in accordance with the Government's rules through the clear drawing up of a specification, the inviting and evaluation of tenders, and the making of awards. I am informed that there are 13 contracts in the highlands and islands, eight of which have been retained by local vets. A deliberate attempt was made to ensure a variety of suppliers, and local vets were encouraged to take part in the tendering process.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: The Minister will know that obesity in children has been a cause for concern in the past couple of years. I wonder whether she has discussed with the Food Standards Agency applying to food the same principle that has been applied to tobacco: labelling food that has all the wrong sugar content, so that parents can know how dangerous such foods are.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That point has nothing to do with the question before us. I call Mr. Fabricant.
    Michael Fabricant: When does the Minister meet Ministers from other Departments to discuss the illegal importation of meat? Is she aware that, from time to time, meat that should be banned is being brought into this country and is entering the food chain? Is she further aware that in Australia, New Zealand and the United States, sniffer dogs are used to prevent such importation? When will she have discussions with Treasury and Home Office Ministers to ensure that ports of entry are tightly controlled to prevent such illegal meat importation?
    Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Ministers are in constant contact with Ministers in other Departments and in other jurisdictions to ensure that the meat that enters this country is of a high quality. As I said to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), public health concerns are obviously a key issue in all our considerations. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) will also know that we have had considerable success in discovering criminal gangs involved in the adulteration of meat in this country. They have been prosecuted by local authorities, and substantial penalties have been imposed on them. This Government take the issue of ensuring that our meat is of the highest quality, and that the supply chain has integrity, extremely seriously.

    Asthma Management
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What assessment he has made of the Buteyko method of asthma management. [82622]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): Following the Adjournment debate on the Buteyko technique in June, the chief medical officer

    745
    asked his special projects officer to investigate the claims made for the technique. He found that the technique was helpful for some patients with asthma, but that more research was needed into it.
    Mrs. Campbell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will she look carefully at the trial in Nottingham, which is being funded by the National Asthma Campaign, and at the trial at Glasgow university? The latter has shown that asthma patients who are taught to breathe correctly can achieve a 98 per cent. reduction in reliever medication, and a 92 per cent. reduction in preventive medication. Does she agree that that is an excellent way to save on the NHS drugs bill?
    Jacqui Smith: I understand that the chief executive of the National Asthma Campaign wrote to the chief medical officer in September, giving some of the preliminary results of the Nottingham inquiry to which my hon. Friend refers. The trial in Scotland, which is being undertaken by Jill McGowan, is still in progress and will not be finished until April 2003. At that stage, conclusions can be formally evaluated using peer review. I agree with my hon. Friend that, given the success that we have already achieved in reducing the incidence of asthma, we must continue to ensure that, where well-researched and successful interventions exist, they are available to patients on the NHS. What is important is that we do the research necessary to show that this method would be as clinically effective as the drug treatments that are proving effective at the moment.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Surely the Minister must recognise that sufficient evidence has been provided in this regard by the 1995 Brisbane trial alone. That trial showed that broncodilator use declined by more than 90 per cent., and that steroid use decreased by 49 per cent., through the Buteyko breathing technique. She has referred to other treatments that might be considered in the health service, but is she aware that some 12 complementary therapies—such as yoga, nutritional medicine and the Alexander technique, which deals with posture—could be inexpensively deployed? When will the Government take seriously such treatments, which are very effective, instead of just paying lip service to them?
    Jacqui Smith: I am the lucky Minister who has to answer the hon. Gentleman's question on complementary medicines today. Obviously, approaches and techniques that give asthma patients lasting relief and greater control of their lives are to be welcomed. That includes the use of complementary therapies, which primary care trusts can commission if they consider them to be effective, in clinical and cost terms, for a particular health need. However, although techniques such as the Buteyko method and others to which the hon. Gentleman referred may have significant benefit, there is no robust scientific evidence that any complementary therapy on its own can provide a lasting cure for asthma. It would therefore be wrong to build up patients' hopes that their asthma could be cured without resort to an existing drug therapy. However, as I made clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), the chief medical officer and the
    746
    Medical Research Council have accepted that more research is needed. Having been an asthma sufferer for some years myself, and I hope that that research will be undertaken.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Should not we consider asthma in the context of chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases? Is my hon. Friend aware of the COPD patient manifesto, launched on world COPD day in November? Will she join me in congratulating the British Lung Foundation, and local Breathe Easy groups such as the one in my constituency, on their work in raising awareness of these ailments, and in providing support for sufferers? Will her Department make a formal response to the COPD patient manifesto?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the role of professional, voluntary and patient organisations in raising awareness of conditions, and of some of the effective techniques that patients understand can be used in treatments. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be aware of the Department's expert patient programme. By means of a series of pilot schemes, it is looking for ways to ensure that professionals and patients can work together more effectively to enable patients to manage their conditions. I shall certainly look at the patient manifesto to which my hon. Friend has referred with close interest.

    Eastbourne District General Hospital
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: If he will make a statement on funding for Eastbourne district general hospital in 2002–03. [82624]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Eastbourne district general hospital is now part of the new East Sussex hospitals NHS trust. The total income for the trust this year is £178 million, an 8.5 per cent. increase in funding for its component sites over 2001–02. In the course of this year, the trust received an additional £440,000 to support additional activity.
    Mr. Waterson: Is the Minister aware that that answer is a disgrace? Has he not seen my letter to the Secretary of State of 21 November, in which I raised the specific issue about which I want to hear—the trust's current deficit of £5 million? Where will that money come from? Will it come from the primary care trust, central Government, or from cuts in services in my local hospital?
    Mr. Hutton: I am sorry to have offended the hon. Gentleman. I was going to thank him for writing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and giving us an indication of what his supplementary question would be. I have no intention of avoiding the question that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He will be aware that the NHS in East Sussex received an additional £60 million in total for this year, an increase of more than 10 per cent. in cash terms. It is incumbent on me to point out that the hon. Gentleman voted against the NHS receiving those additional resources. However, I know that he rightly takes an interest in the NHS in his constituency, so I am sure that he will know that the

    747
    trust board met last Wednesday to discuss how to resolve the matters to which he has referred. The board has developed an action plan to deal with precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. If he is not aware of the decisions taken last week by the trust board, I will ensure that he receives a full copy of its report.

    Prisoners (Mental Health)
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: What recent assessment he has made of the health of prisoners. [82625]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. David Lammy): Since 2000, all prison service establishments and their NHS partners are expected to complete prison health needs assessments and prison health action plans. These identify, on a regular basis, the services required to meet prisoners' health needs.
    Dr. Murrison: In a series of written answers, Home Office Ministers have shown themselves to have a lamentably low grip on the mental health of people in our penal institutions. I welcome Health Ministers' assumption of some of that role from April this year. What plans do they have for improving the mental health of people in prisons, particularly for increasing the rate of prescription of atypical antipsychotics? Can they assure the House that there will be the necessary transfer of funds from the Home Office to the NHS?
    Mr. Lammy: The use of antipsychotic drugs is being considered by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. However, our mental health strategy, published in December, makes it clear that all prisons and their NHS partners should review annually their mental health needs and develop action plans to deal with them. At the same time, the NHS has funded mental health inreach teams; the number will rise from the current 22 to 70 by April 2004. Of course, that takes money and investment, and I wish that the hon. Gentleman's party would match our investment in that regard.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: We heard on "Newsnight" last night from Mr. Hellawell's assistant, Mike Trace, that the £50 million allocated to the prison service for drug treatment is not getting through. Will my hon. Friend carry out an audit and ensure that that money gets through?
    Mr. Lammy: It is getting through. Some 25,000 initial assessments have been undertaken and there are 60 intensive drug treatment programmes, plus additional funds, announced this morning in the drugs strategy.
    Tim Loughton: The Minister should be aware that in the first six months of this year, the prison suicide rate increased by an alarming 40 per cent. Figures show that 70 per cent. of prisoners may be suffering from some form of personality disorder, yet the medical inspector of the inspectorate of prisons, John Reed, called care for mentally disordered offenders in prison a disgrace. Does
    748
    the Minister agree that a prison spell should be an opportunity to administer proper treatment for mental illness, not to make it worse? When the ill-fated mental health Bill re-emerges, will he make sure that it focuses on providing appropriate and early mental health treatment and care for prisoners and other citizens alike, rather than banging up yet more people, adding to the thousands with mental health problems banged up already?
    Mr. Lammy: I will not seek to make a party political point on such a serious issue. The prison service is part way through a three-year programme of work designed to reduce the incidence of suicide and self-harm among our prisoners. Close watch is paid to the mental health of young offenders at Feltham and other institutions, and extra provision made to prevent suicide.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the prisons inspectorate. The former chief inspector of prisons has said that the partnerships between the NHS and the prison service are successful.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: As part of its health improvement programme, Woodhill prison in my constituency has agreed an ambitious series of targets with our local primary care trust. Will the Minister clarify where the funding is coming from to make sure that those targets are met? Is it from the prison service or the PCT?
    Mr. Lammy: Since 2000, there has been a close partnership between the NHS and the prison service. That means that by 2005–06, the NHS and the Department of Health will have increased funding by £46 million across the country, which will benefit my hon. Friend's local primary care trust.

    Primary Care (Disabled People)
    Mr. Tim Boswell: If he will make a statement on access to primary care for disabled people. [82626]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Jacqui Smith): We are committed to delivering primary care services that offer prompt and convenient access to all, including disabled people. The NHS plan sets a primary care access target that by 2004 all patients will be able to see a primary care professional within 24 hours and a general practitioner within 48 hours.
    Mr. Boswell: But does the hon. Lady accept that in some parts of the country, including mine, it is difficult to get on a GP's list? It is even harder to do so for disabled people and it is exceptionally hard for people with a history of mental illness or with learning difficulties. What specific action does she plan to take to ensure that those very vulnerable people obtain the services they need and to which they are entitled?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, especially about people with learning disabilities. If they have been in institutional care, or are still in such care, they are often not on GPs' lists. That is why the White Paper, "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century",

    749
    made it clear that people with learning disabilities needed the same access to GPs and to primary care as everybody else. That is why, by summer 2003, we expect the local partnership boards to have put in place health facilitators, to help people with learning disabilities to access health services. That is why we have already issued for primary health care teams good practice guidance on meeting the needs of people with learning disabilities. In various parts of the country, there are already good and innovative training schemes, whereby staff and GPs in primary care receive training about and are made aware of the particular needs of people with learning disabilities.
    Helen Jackson: Is it not true that, more than anything, disabled people want to remain independent in their own home? Will my hon. Friend consider how the primary care sector of the health service can work with local authorities to bring down—almost to nothing—waiting times for people who want to adapt their homes or to put in bathroom conversions for level access showers to enable them to remain independent?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the role of adaptations and equipment in enabling disabled people to remain independent. Some of those issues are the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I have discussed the matter with ministerial colleagues there, and the Department of Health has made a contribution to the home improvement agencies in order to ensure that those types of adaptation are in place, especially for people who leave hospital. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced during the summer, we are also extending by 500,000 the number of pieces of community equipment available and that will benefit another 200,000 people over the next three years. Furthermore, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Bill, if passed by the House, will also ensure that such community equipment is provided free to everybody who needs it.

    Foundation Hospitals
    Mr. Mark Prisk: If he will make a statement on the financial and legal relationship between the Department of Health and foundation hospital trusts. [82627]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): NHS foundation trusts will be part of the national health service but they will be owned and controlled by the local community, not by the Department of Health. This modern form of local public ownership will be spelled out in detail in a guide to NHS foundation trusts that I hope to publish before too long.
    Mr. Prisk: Although we shall welcome that guidance note, the Secretary of State needs to be aware that many of my constituents are confused by the conflicting statements from Ministers on the issue. Will he provide a definitive answer today on financial matters in foundation hospitals—for example, borrowing—and
    750
    explain to the House who will have the final say? Will it be his Department, the Treasury or the regulator, or will it be locally elected governors?
    Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the guide—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The hon. Gentleman would like a guide so I will give him a guide and a hint. He asked about local governance. As I told the House during the debate on the Queen's Speech, the membership of those organisations will be drawn from people in the local community served by the local hospital. Those members will be able to elect governors who will oversee the work of the hospital board. As a consequence, for the first time there will be a genuine form of local public ownership that will put the public at the heart of our key public service. It certainly will not be national state ownership. It will be a genuine form of local ownership.
    NHS foundation trusts will be free to borrow; they may do so from the private markets and they will have access to public sector resources too. Decisions about their right to borrow will be based on an assessment of their ability to pay; that is not an assessment that I will be undertaking.
    Mr. Andy Reed: Although the proposals are relatively controversial, as I am sure that the Minister would agree, does he accept that the cooperative and mutual role could play a really positive part in delivering those hospitals, if they go ahead?
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend has made an extremely important point. Certainly for those on the Labour Benches—perhaps not those on the Conservative Benches—there is a well-established tradition of cooperation and mutualism, which is at the heart of the founding of our party and the wider Labour movement. In terms of their governance, those organisations will be firmly grounded in those traditions. They will be owned and run by members of the local community. Therefore, for the first time since 1948, there will be clear national standards and NHS hospitals, serving NHS patients, according to NHS principles. They will provide care, according to NHS standards and inspected by an NHS inspectorate, that is free and which is offered on the basis of need, not the ability to pay. The difference is that members of the local community served by the local hospital will have some say over the decisions that are taken by that local hospital. That is not a form of privatisation, which the Conservative party advocates; it is a genuine form of local public ownership.
    Dr. Liam Fox: On 7 August, the Secretary of State said:
    "For some on the Centre Left the idea of transforming the public sector monopoly is heresy…In health, this means primary care trusts having control over budgets with explicit freedom to purchase care from the most appropriate provider—public, private or voluntary…And existing NHS hospitals should be able to become NHS foundation hospitals".
    I completely agree with him.

    751
    However, the Chancellor, in his Guardian tapes this week, said that
    "there will be problems in health if you try to introduce market forces. There is no way markets work in health care. If they did, you would have this extreme power of the producer over the consumer."
    How can both those views be compatible?
    Mr. Milburn: It is the hon. Gentleman who is fixated on market forces. Indeed, I think that one year he managed tell his party conference that, as an unreconstructed Thatcherite, he was wedded to the market inside the national health service. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, foundation hospitals have nothing to do with market forces, still less to do with privatisation. It is about public ownership. It is about ensuring that the local public, who are served by the local hospital, are at the heart of the governance of that local hospital: so no longer will the hospital be owned by Secretaries of State of whatever political persuasion. It will be owned and controlled by the local community.
    Dr. Fox: Instead of treating us to philosophical gobbledegook, the Secretary of State would be more honest if he said that his view was right and that the Chancellor—the psychologically flawed, downgraded Chancellor—was wrong. But since he cannot answer the ideological questions, perhaps he can answer a practical one. He has told the House that three-star hospitals alone will become foundation hospitals. What happens if a three-star trust becomes a two-star trust during the transition period? Will the process be stopped? And once a hospital has become a foundation hospital, what then? Will it still be subject to the star rating or, once it reaches foundation status, will that no longer apply?
    The Secretary of State needs to understand that he must give clear answers to practical questions, because there is a distinct impression that not only is the Cabinet at loggerheads on this, but that Ministers are making up the proposal as they go along.
    Mr. Milburn: As for the rating, yes, NHS foundation trusts will be subject to the star rating system, just as every other part of the national health service will be, whether it is a primary care trust or other NHS trust. As for what would happen in the event of a three-star NHS foundation trust losing its three-star status, when the hon. Gentleman reads the guide he will see that the independent regulator whom we will appoint will have various intervention powers to deal with precisely those circumstances.
    On the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised about only three-star trusts being allowed to become NHS foundation trusts, I should point out to him that there would be no arbitrary cap on the number of NHS foundation trusts. The more performance improves throughout the national health service, the more NHS foundation trusts we can have. But we have to start somewhere. We should start with those that have a proven track record of success. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that 40 per cent. of the current three-star trusts in the national health service come from the
    752
    poorest parts of the country: places such as Doncaster, Sunderland, Hackney and Liverpool. So it will be a means not just of improving—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Hugh Bayley: If clinical outcomes and the quality of care in a foundation hospital decline markedly, will the guidance that the Secretary of State is issuing to the regulator include the possibility of the hospital losing its foundation status?
    Mr. Milburn: Yes.

    Agency/Bank Nurses
    Norman Lamb: If he will make a statement on the amount spent on agency and bank nurses over the Christmas period 2001. [82628]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): Data on the amount spent on agency nurses are collected annually. In 2000–01, £435 million was spent on non-NHS nursing, midwifery and health visiting temporary staff. Information on the amount spent on bank nurses is not held centrally.
    Norman Lamb: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I draw his attention to the fact that the Norfolk and Norwich hospital spent £1.1 million on agency nurses last year—nearly double the amount spent in the previous year and five times the amount spent in 1996–97? The cost of agency nurses appears to be spiralling out of control in Norwich and nationally and NHS Professionals appears not to be working as intended. Does that not demonstrate a failure of work force planning in the past five years? What steps are the Government taking to address that massive cost to the NHS to ensure that the extra money going into the NHS is spent in the most effective way?
    Mr. Hutton: I agree that spending on commercial agency nurses is far too high, and we need to take action to reduce it. We shall do so, first, by establishing NHS Professionals, on which we are making progress. For example, nearly 2,000 additional staff have been recruited to NHS Professionals in London in recent months. It is making progress, but we need to do more. Equally important, one of the principal ways that we will reduce costs, if that is the hon. Gentleman's concern—it is mine—is by extending nationally the terms of the London agency project, which is working well in London, to reduce the number of commercial agencies that we use and the amount that we pay them for those services. We will be able to extend the London agency project nationwide in the spring of next year, which will help significantly in reducing the costs.
    David Taylor: One of the reasons why many nurses choose to work through agencies is that they can thereby obtain more flexible work patterns that reflect modern lifestyles and family demands. What is the Minister doing to encourage

    753
    hospitals to offer that to directly employed nurses, so that the cost of agency nurses does not spiral even further out of control?
    Mr. Hutton: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I draw his attention to the fact that we are investing significant amounts of additional money in improving precisely the conditions of service that he mentions, especially child care and flexible working. The new agenda for change proposals will make a significant difference to the flexibility of employment in the NHS and, I hope, help to provide, at least in part, the solution that he and I are looking for.

    General Practitioner Vacancies
    Mrs. Patsy Calton: Whether general practitioner vacancies have gone up since 2001; and if he will make a statement. [82629]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The NHS recruitment, retention and vacancy survey shows that there has been an increase in the estimated three-month vacancy rate for GPs from 1.7 per cent. on 31 March 2001 to 2.7 per cent. on 28 February 2002. The higher number of all GPs working in the NHS, excluding GP trainers, has increased by 1,469, or 5 per cent., since 1997.
    Mrs. Calton: Will the Minister explain why the Secretary of State announced the golden hello scheme twice in March 2001, yet failed to provide any guidelines, including the start date—1 April 2001—until November 2001?
    Mr. Hutton: We announced that we had reached agreement on the scheme and, in November, we
    754
    announced and confirmed its details, but the payments were backdated to April, so no GP lost out. I am sure that the hon. Lady will be pleased to note that, last week, I confirmed that the golden hello payment has been increased to £12,000.

    Cancer Care
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress towards meeting his targets on cancer care. [82630]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): Thanks to the hard work of those working in the NHS, we are already making real progress in implementing the NHS cancer plan. Patients are benefiting from improvements across all aspects of cancer care, and cancer mortality rates are falling.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that specialist oncology trusts have a key part to play in maintaining standards in cancer care? Does she also agree that any review of trusts needs to be driven by patient interests rather than by pre-judgment on an organisational or numerical basis?
    Ms Blears: Specialist trusts remain an essential part of the cancer care system. I am delighted to confirm that at the Clatterbridge centre for oncology in my hon. Friend's area, a new CT scanner, three linear accelerators, a radiotherapy treatment planning system and an MRI scanner have already been delivered. I am also delighted to confirm that the patient's interest will be uppermost in our minds in relation to the whole of the cancer care system and the design of any new cancer care services for my hon. Friend's community.

Hunting with Dogs
3.30 pm
(Alun Michael): It is an honour and a privilege to outline to the House my proposals for legislation to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs. Few people would regard that as the most important issue for Parliament and Government to resolve, but it is a serious issue on which many Members of this House and members of the public have very strong and polarised views. That is why we must return to the matter again.
The last time that Parliament considered a Bill on hunting with dogs, no agreement was reached between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. That is why our manifesto promised to
"enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs".
That is why the Prime Minister gave me the job of fulfilling our manifesto commitment by designing legislation to command the support of Parliament and to make good law—legislation that will stand the test of time.
At the request of the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal and the Countryside Alliance, I took the conclusions of the Burns inquiry as my starting point. The terms of reference required Lord Burns to look at all aspects of hunting with dogs, and the authority of his report is acknowledged on all sides. The key issues emerging from the Burns report were cruelty and utility. Those two principles have run like a golden thread through the consultation process. Everything has been tested against them. Are we preventing cruelty? Are we recognising what farmers and others need to do to eradicate vermin or to protect livestock, crops or the biodiversity of an area? My Bill is based on the answers to those two questions.
After my statement in March, I started a wide-ranging consultation process involving all interested parties, Members of Parliament and the public. Initially, the response generated more heat than light: some 7,000 people wrote asking me to leave everything unchanged. That matched some 7,000 who asked me to "just ban everything". Others wrote detailed contributions, however, which were based on evidence and on their personal experience. In May, I asked for detailed evidence to be submitted against a set of questions and criteria, which were based on looking at the issues of cruelty and utility and other questions raised by the evidence that I had received by that time. The amount of serious engagement increased greatly.
In September, I chaired a series of public hearings in Portcullis House. The three main campaigning groups participated fully. Together, we heard expert witnesses from all sides of the argument who debated the merit of applying the principles of cruelty and utility to the activity of hunting mammals with dogs. I want to pay tribute to the leaders of those groups—the Countryside Alliance, the Campaign for the Protection of the Hunted Animal and the middle way group—who fully engaged in a mature and intelligent manner on an issue on which each of them feels passionately and deeply.
During the consultation, both sides welcomed and praised a process that has been fair, open and transparent. The two principles of cruelty and utility
756
provide the golden thread that runs from the start to the finish of the process and through the drafting of the Bill. That golden thread is strengthened by the integrity of the process, the basis of principle and the strong focus on evidence that has led me to conclusions that I hope will command the support of this House.
I will publish a Bill this afternoon but, in advance of that, let me take this opportunity to outline my reasoning behind those conclusions. There has been support from all the organisations involved for the idea of drafting legislation on the basis of evidence and the two principles of cruelty and utility. That in itself is very significant and should be noted by Opposition Members.
On a number of occasions, John Jackson, chairman of the Countryside Alliance, said, "If something is cruel, we shouldn't be doing it", and animal welfare organisations have acknowledged "utility"—the things that need to be done for such purposes as eradicating vermin or to protect livestock. Indeed, they included a list of exemptions in the deadline 2000 option that we debated in the last Parliament. The middle way group has also acknowledged the validity of these two principles.
The Bill is designed to recognise utility and prevent cruelty. Let me briefly spell out what that means. The utility test involves asking what is necessary to prevent serious damage to livestock, crops and other property or biological diversity. The cruelty test involves asking which effective methods of achieving that purpose cause the least suffering. All activities will be judged on the evidence available about whether they meet both the tests. Where an activity has no utility and involves cruelty, it will not be allowed to continue. Incontrovertible evidence shows that the activities of hare coursing and deer hunting cannot meet the two tests, so these activities will be banned. Where an activity with dogs has general utility and there is no generally less cruel method, it will be allowed. Again, incontrovertible evidence has shown that such activities as ratting and rabbiting should be allowed to continue, and they will be dealt with in the Bill.
For some activities, the evidence is less clear-cut, so I propose to set up an independent process to consider on a case-by-case basis whether particular activities involving dogs meet the two tests. That is consistent with the Burns findings. The procedure will require an application to an independent registrar showing why there is a need to undertake the proposed activity and to show that the cruelty test is satisfied. The procedure will then allow a prescribed animal welfare organisation to provide evidence as well. If the registrar is satisfied that both tests are met, he will grant registration; if not, he will refuse. In considering applications, the registrar will also have to consider whether the applicant will be able to comply with standard conditions, such as requiring hunted animals to be killed quickly and humanely when caught. Applicants may also specify conditions to which their hunting will be subject.
If either side wishes to appeal against the decision, it can do so to an independent tribunal. The tribunal will be a national body with a president at its head appointed by the Lord Chancellor. A panel will have a legally qualified chair, normally sitting with two other members—one with land management experience and the other with animal welfare experience. This is similar

757
to the fair and effective way in which housing law and employment law have been dealt with to a high standard over many years. Let me stress that we will not be establishing local tribunals.
At every stage, there will be balance, fairness, clear principles, transparency and an emphasis on evidence within a process that is based on clear tests and that enables hunters and those concerned with animal welfare to present their evidence. The onus is now on the people who want to undertake any activity to show that they can meet the tests of utility and cruelty. They might find ways of changing their activity to meet the two tests. That will be a matter for them, and I am not going to prejudge the independent registrar. What is clear is that if they cannot meet the tests, the activity cannot continue. It is simple. If the activity cannot meet the tests, the activity will not happen; if it can, it will.
A number of commentators have tried to suggest that there is an intention to go beyond the issue of hunting to other country sports. I want to make it clear that there is no such intention. It is spelled out in our manifesto commitment:
"We have no intention whatsoever of placing restrictions on the sports of angling and shooting."
I am also convinced by the evidence that there is no need to control falconry within the provisions of the Bill. In falconry, dogs are used to flush out quarry, so for the avoidance of doubt the Bill will specify such activities as exempted activities.
It may be argued that the two principles of utility and cruelty, on which I am basing my proposals, do not go wide enough. The social and economic contribution of hunting will be mentioned, or the argument that ancient freedoms should not be interfered with will be made. Those are serious points and I do not take them lightly, but the key point is that no one has a right, nor should have a right, to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. Of course we want to keep to a minimum the constraints on people's behaviour and activity, but to ask for the liberty to be cruel would be absurd. Parliament has the right to set limits and has done so in the past. That is what the Bill does. It seeks to prevent cruelty associated with hunting with dogs. Even if someone is registered, that does not allow that individual to undertake activities in such a way as to cause avoidable or unnecessary suffering. People will be registered to hunt certain species with dogs in a specific area; they will not have licence to he cruel.
Let us not forget that we have to address the issue and bring it to a sensible resolution in a way that will stand the test of time rather than being a quick fix or a temporary solution that cannot be implemented. My conclusions are based on evidence and principle, not prejudice on either side of the argument. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will see the merit of the proposals because they are fair and reasonable. They balance principle and evidence and can be enforced.
Most people want to see cruelty prevented. They also want farmers, gamekeepers and others who have to manage the land to be able to do so. There is no magic wand. There is no quick win. The basis of principle and evidence provides a golden thread that runs through the
758
whole process and provides authority for the proposals themselves. I believe that my proposals will stand the test of time and are right. I commend them to the House.
Mr. David Lidington: May I begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman sincerely for his courtesy in letting me and my Front-Bench team have an advance copy of the statement? That was much appreciated.
When the Government's Bill comes before the House, Conservative Members, Front and Back Bench alike, will have a completely free vote, as they have in the past. When the right hon. Gentleman commends the proposals, is he expressing the collective view of Her Majesty's Government? Will all members of the Government support the Bill as it has been described by the right hon. Gentleman? Can he even vouch for the support of fellow Ministers in his Department? Do the Government intend to use the Parliament Act to force through a Bill in whatever form it leaves the House of Commons? Is not it the truth that Labour Members of Parliament are not going to let the Minister get away—golden thread or no golden thread—with anything short of the complete ban that they have been calling for over so many years?
I have questions on specific aspects of the package. Let me begin with the licensing procedure. On whom does the Minister propose that the burden of proof should rest? Will it be for the applicant to prove—if so, to what standard?—that hunting meets the two tests, or will it be for the objector to prove that there are good reasons why the licence ought not to be granted? Once the licence has been granted, will it be permanent? If not, why not? Will there be a time limit? If so, on what grounds?
The Minister made much of the two tests. Does not he accept that both terms—cruelty and utility—must inevitably involve a subjective judgment?
Will the test of utility allow arguments to be heard about the importance of hunting in supporting conservation and about the impact that a ban would have on employment, especially in remote rural areas? Who will appoint the new registrar? How will the impartiality of that Solomon-type figure be assured?
The Minister proposes major restrictions on the individual liberty of our fellow citizens, yet the one omission from his statement was any mention of the new criminal offences that I presume he intends the Bill to create. What offences does he plan to create, and which people does he intend to criminalise? Is it the Government's intention that landowners and dog owners or dog keepers should face criminal penalties as well as people who might continue to hunt in defiance of a refusal of a licence? Is that sort of new criminal law a sensible priority for a hard-pressed and overstretched police service that is having great difficulty responding to reasonable public expectations at the moment?
What lessons has the right hon. Gentleman drawn from the experience of our neighbours north of the border? He proposes that hounds should continue to be used in falconry to flush out prey. He will know that in the previous Bill on this subject the use of dogs to flush out deer from woodlands and coverts was extensively debated, so will this Bill include a similar exemption for flushing out deer, as well as foxes, mink and other species?

759
The point at which I found myself in greatest agreement with the Minister was when he said at the outset that this is hardly a subject that comes high on the list of priorities for people in this country. Does not the Government's decision to give such a high priority to this statement and the proposed legislation indicate what an absurd sense of priority is possessing Ministers? Let us contemplate this afternoon's business: surely it is crazy that the Government should place a statement on hunting with hounds ahead of a statement on the crisis in our public examinations system. We know from the Government that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to the next statement. We will deal with that when we come to it.
Mr. Lidington: I accept your correction, Mr. Speaker.
The Government, including the right hon. Gentleman's Department, have made it clear that they can find no time in their programme for a Bill to strengthen controls on illegal meat imports or to debate today's compelling report on rural poverty from the Countryside Agency, yet they can spare scarce parliamentary and ministerial time to debate a Bill on hunting at a time when our public services are in crisis. The Minister may hope that, for a while, his statement will distract the attention of his Back-Bench colleagues, but one thing is certain: this statement and this Bill have nothing whatever to do with the genuine priorities of the British people.
Alun Michael: May I start by dealing with one of the most absurd elements in the hon. Gentleman's comments? The Bill will come before the House because Members have voted time and again to introduce legislation, and I point out also that Members have turned up in large numbers to vote against legislation, so those on both sides of the House have engaged with the issue and made it a priority. This is a Government Bill, introduced to help Parliament to resolve the issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the issue of the Parliament Act. I dealt with that in March, and made the point that we hope that it will not be necessary for that Act to be applied, as we hope that people will engage with sensible proposals that will command the support of the House and, indeed, of another place. I hope to be able to persuade Labour Members, about whose views the hon. Gentleman asked, of the effectiveness of the legislation in dealing with the issue of cruelty associated with hunting.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. It will be for the applicant to show that he has satisfied the two tests before registering for any activity, and a designated animal welfare organisation will have the opportunity to show evidence to the contrary. We envisage that permission will he granted for three years, after which a renewal can be applied for. The whole point of the two tests will be set out clearly and defined in the Bill, which I look forward to debating on Second Reading and subsequently. The two tests will be applied to the evidence that is offered, and utility will be carefully defined in the Bill, as I suggested in my statement.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect on employment. The evidence is that generally it would be minimal, but of course there could be an effect on
760
individuals who, as in any question of employment, would have the sympathy and support of the Government and the House.
The hon. Gentleman asked about appointments. There are procedures for making sure that people appointed to any body with a regulatory function are appropriate and able to deal with the questions independently. The tribunal will be dealt with under the powers of the Lord Chancellor.
The hon. Gentleman asked about liberty. Surely he is not asking for the liberty to be cruel; people would be criminalised only if they broke the law.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there should be simple tests. We will put simple tests in place to establish whether the law has been broken. We have been told that these are law-abiding people. In that case, I am sure that they will obey the law, as decided by Parliament. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have discussed enforcement with police at the most senior level, and my proposals are clearly workable.
There is one mischief about which many Opposition Members write to me—the problems that arise from illegal hare coursing. The Bill will tackle that by giving powers to the police to enable them to deal with illegal hare coursing, which they are currently unable to do.
On some of the particulars, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman wait to see the details of the Bill. There will be an opportunity to debate them on Second Reading and subsequently, so I do not want take up too much of the House's time now. However, as I said at the outset, we are taking the time to deal with this issue because, year after year, hon. Members have demonstrated that they believe that it has to be dealt with. In our manifesto, the Government indicated that we would enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue. I hope that the Bill that I will publish later today will indeed enable Parliament to do so on the basis of principle and evidence.
Andrew George: I, too, am grateful to the Minister for his usual courtesy in providing an advance copy of his statement.
The Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats have a party policy on the issue that favours a ban, but of course we would allow a free vote, to satisfy a range of views within the parliamentary party, all of which are cherished. On the basis of his statement, I can give the proposed legislation a cautious welcome, but much will depend on the Bill's capacity to set utility and cruelty thresholds at a meaningful, rather than synthetically low, level.
Livestock farmers want to be reassured that the Government have considered the impact of the proposed legislation on their current arrangements for the efficient removal of fallen livestock from farmsteads. The Government must take account of the need for an efficient method of fallen livestock removal, especially in view of their intention to ban on-farm burial in February.
Farmers will not want to find their activities outlawed by a Bill, especially when efficient and humane methods of on-farm pest control exist. I gave the Minister an example of one of my cousins who has a poultry farm and found an ingenious and humane method of dealing with pests.

761
The Minister said that he favours a ban on hare coursing and deer hunting, but will he ensure that, before the Bill is enacted, a proper deer management and culling plan is in place on Exmoor to avoid the predictable mayhem that would ensue in the area? If he favours banning hare coursing and deer hunting, what conclusion has he reached on the utility and cruelty case for pre-season cub hunting, which is undertaken mainly on the basis of dog training?
If the Minister favours the least cruel method, what is his view of the use of dogs that are not capable of efficient pursuit but are bred to prolong the chase? Above all, does he agree that there are many more important matters that affect country folk—for example, the future of farming and rural housing—than hunting and that the Government are concentrating a disproportionate amount of parliamentary time on those who happen to get their kicks out of chasing wild animals around the countryside?
Alun Michael: To take the last point first, I agree that many more important issues affect the countryside. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not mention post offices, about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made an announcement yesterday. She outlined the investment that the Government are making in preserving rural post offices. We are also taking steps to strengthen the rural economy, and to deal with rural housing and many other issues that are far more important than the subject of the statement. However, the matter must be tackled. It is important and hon. Members have made it clear that they want it to be resolved.
I am glad that the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) acknowledged that all views exist in his party and that the Liberal Democrats, like Labour Members and Conservative Members, will have a free vote.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned fallen livestock. There is a need to end on-farm burial because of its environmental impact and the European regulations. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), continues to hold discussions with the industry on the best way to deal with that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Exmoor, and I acknowledge that there is a specific culture that relates to deer on Exmoor. I have spent time there and met all the groups to understand the reasoning behind their defence of hunting. The evidence is conclusive and that is why I believe it must be banned. However, I am prepared to spend time considering the consequences for the health and continuation of the deer herd on Exmoor, and to engage with those of all parties who have an interest in that as well as those who represent people in the Exmoor area.
Mr. Michael Foster: From the evidence that my right hon. Friend has read, does he envisage that foxhunting in traditional areas such as Worcestershire and Gloucestershire will pass the utility and cruelty test? For hon. Members with short-term memory lapses, will he restate the commitment that he made to my right
762
hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) about the possible use of the Parliament Act?
Alun Michael: I confirm that I made the position clear on the Parliament Act in March. I made two points. I said that the Government are committed to enabling Parliament to reach a conclusion on the subject and that the Parliament Act would be available in the event of conflict between the two Houses.
I also made it clear that we want to get legislation before the House and the other place that will command support on all sides because it is fair, objective and based on principles, and because it deals with the issue of cruelty in relation to hunting with dogs. It is our preference that, in considering legislation that comes from this House, the other place should support it and seek to improve it, rather than seeking to obstruct it. I hope that such legislation will be dealt with in that way.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: These proposals, with all their fatuous bureaucracy, truly represent the low point of Labour's third way. What representations has the Minister received from police organisations about whether the proposals are workable and enforceable? If they are thought not to be, will not they discredit the rule of law and divert scarce police resources from the real war on crime that his Government make so much of, while doing absolutely nothing for animal welfare?
Alun Michael: It is an odd suggestion that we have reached a low point by basing legislation on principle. The Bill is based on two clear principles: that of eradicating cruelty and that of allowing the utility necessary for land managers to undertake their work. I said in response to an earlier question that I had consulted the police at the highest level. I am satisfied that the measures will not only be enforceable but will make life easier for the police—for example, in enforcing the law in respect of illegal hare coursing, which causes a massive nuisance in some parts of the country. Indeed, many Conservative Members have asked me to take action on it. I am satisfied that the Bill will improve the situation and that it will be simple and straightforward to enforce.
David Winnick: I recognise the amount of work that my right hon. Friend has done on this issue, but does he not realise that it should not be the subject of a compromise? Those of us who believe strongly that hunting with dogs is totally inappropriate and should be banned hope that—with our majority in the House of Commons—that can now be done, and many of us believe that it should have been done in the last Parliament.
Alun Michael: I have not put forward a compromise—or a fudge, as it has been described by some. I have put forward proposals, as my hon. Friend will see when the Bill is published, that are based on principles and on evidential tests, and I hope that they will command the support of the House. There is a tendency for people to say either that we should leave things as they are, or that we should have a complete

763
ban. That approach is too simplistic. [Interruption.]I ask my hon. Friends to listen to this point. The Bill that was introduced on the last occasion, which was drafted by Deadline 2000, did not propose a simple blanket ban. It recognised utility, and listed some activities that could continue. We should be careful not to ban activities unless they fail the two tests of utility and cruelty. I promise my hon. Friend that the Bill that I will publish this afternoon deals with the issue of cruelty.
Mr. Hugo Swire: Cannot the Minister see that even his statement is biased and prejudicial? Surely the burden of proof in any licensing system should be with the licensor in turning down an application, rather than with hunting people having to justify their requirement for a licence every time they apply for one.
Alun Michael: Clearly, I disagree with that. If people want to undertake these activities with dogs, they will have to show that there is utility, that they have a reason for doing it and that no cruelty is involved. They will have to show that any suffering involved will be kept to a minimum unless there are no alternatives for dealing with land management issues. That is a simple and straightforward matter of principle.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this botched attempt to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds is unacceptable to many Members of the House of Commons? Will he make it clear to me that the Bill that he is publishing has been drafted in such a way as to allow hon. Members to amend it to bring about a complete ban? Will he also reiterate his assurance to me that, if the House votes in that way, a complete ban will be forced through Parliament—if need be, under the Parliament Act?
Alun Michael: I shall not repeat what I said to my right hon. Friend in March because that stands, but I ask him to consider whether he wants to outlaw ratting, for example, which seems to be the implication of his remarks. He has not seen the Bill as yet. When he reads it, he will see that it deals with the issue of cruelty. Surely cruelty should be foremost in the minds of Members of the House, and I shall seek to persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends that what I have drafted and introduced will indeed deal with that issue.
Mr. Edward Gamier: What is the substance of the evidence that the Minister saw and which Lord Burns and his inquiry team did not?
Alun Michael: First, the conclusions of the Burns report and the evidence available to Lord Burns were available to me as my starting point. Secondly, the evidence that I saw will be available in the Library. Thirdly, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, before asking his question, took the trouble to consider the videos of the evidence and the discussions from the three days of public hearings in Portcullis House, which involved all three main campaigning organisations. I wrote to every Member of the House to point out their availability to all. That information is in the public
764
domain and it is transparent. The process, I suggest, should be respected, as it is clearly respected by all three main organisations.
Kate Hoey: I thank the Minister for the time that he has put into this very divisive issue; I know that the job has been difficult for him. I welcome the fact that he has clearly changed his mind to accept what some of us—at least one or two of us—on this side of the House have said about a complete ban on hunting being wrong and unacceptable. Will he clarify this for me: if the Bill that he is introducing is a Government Bill, on which there will be a free vote, how can he possibly allow the Parliament Act to be used if it is amended?
Alun Michael: I do not think that I understand the final point. The Bill is a Government Bill, and I am acting on the Government's behalf in making proposals to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue. Of course, if a Bill were passed by the Alun Michael: I do not think that I understand the final point. The Bill is a Government Bill, and I am acting on the Government's behalf in making proposals to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue. Of course, if a Bill were passed by the House and blocked by another place, it would be reintroduced, as we have indicated. It would be not for us but for Parliament to decide whether the Parliament Act applied. Indeed, it is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether the Parliament Act applies in any particular circumstances.
Mr. Peter Luff: I have reservations about banning any of the activities covered by the Minister's statement, but does he understand that, because he put animal welfare at the centre of his remarks, the middle way group will have to give his proposals a cautious welcome? Does he also understand, however, that many will be concerned that, used improperly, those powers could lead to the banning of hunting through the back door? Is he open to suggestions on how the utility test could be modified to ensure that that does not happen?
Alun Michael: The question will be straightforward for any aspect of hunting that is not either accepted or banned outright—that is, it can take place only if it satisfies the two tests. First, there must be a genuine utility in it and it must be useful. Of course, that is the ground on which hunting has been defended over time. Secondly, it must satisfy the cruelty test. In other words, if it is cruel, it cannot be undertaken. So, the two tests are very clear and I believe that they will be applied clearly and successfully.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I commend my right hon. Friend for his political adroitness and unfailing courtesy during a process that many would consider to be the political equivalent of getting the black spot from Blind Pew? I say to him in all friendliness that he will be caught like piggy in the middle and I suspect that Parliament will indulge in a bit of pig sticking, which is a revolting pursuit when it involves either pigs or Ministers. Will he give the House an absolute assurance that the Bill is amendable—I assume it must be—and that there will be a free vote at every stage of its consideration?
Alun Michael: I can confirm both those points. The Bill, of course, is amendable and it will be dealt with on a free vote. That does not mean that I am relaxed about

765
whether it should be amended, and I shall seek to persuade colleagues that it is correctly judged and that it deals precisely with the issues, not least that of cruelty, which is the one that concerns my hon. Friend.
I invite colleagues to read the Bill in the light of this question: what is the concern and why has hunting been such an issue for Parliament over many years? The answer, I suggest, is that Members of the House are not happy with the cruelty that is associated with hunting. If they read the legislation and see that it deals with cruelty, but does so in a way that allows land managers to do what they need to do to continue with their livelihood and activities, I suggest that we will have the balance right. If I get shouted at from both sides for trying to get it right, I shall take that as a slightly curious form of support.
Gregory Barker: Earlier this morning I was able to talk to hunt followers at a meet in my constituency, and to discuss the Minister's comments, which had already been leaked ahead of his statement. They considered those comments draconian, unnecessary and intrusive. Nevertheless, if the Minister genuinely proposes to introduce legislation that is based on "cruelty and utility" and if those criteria are fairly and objectively met, they will have no problem with it because, in so many parts of the country, hunting is not cruel and does serve a utilitarian purpose.
Is the Minister aware, however, that it is not just hunting that is on the line, but his integrity and the integrity of the Government in pursuing those two requirements and ensuring that they are fairly met?
Alun Michael: That was another absurd contribution. The hon. Gentleman has listened to people's comments on a Bill that they have not seen and he has not seen. I suggest that he was indulging in an exercise in prejudice this morning.
The hon. Gentleman should not believe claims that there have been leaks in advance. The fact is that we have engaged in an open and transparent process. I set out the principles of the Bill—the principles of utility and cruelty—in my statement to the House on 21 March. The evidence we have heard has been available on a website, on video and in transcripts throughout. It is not surprising that people may have looked at the evidence and reached conclusions on the nature of the proposals I would present; but I have presented my proposals in a statement to the House first, and will subsequently present them to the House in a Bill.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I welcome the statement and I welcome the Bill, to the extent that it can be amended. In an earlier statement, however, my right hon. Friend said that Ministers would be given a free vote on this issue. Is that still the case?
Alun Michael: It is a free-vote issue. A Government Bill is being presented to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue. I will seek to persuade colleagues to support the Bill, because I believe it to be
766
right. I am happy to talk to them long into the night if necessary to explain why it will work, why it will be fair and why it will be right.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: I am curious about whether the register system will work. Surely one side or the other will inevitably appeal. I am also curious about how the Minister will deal with someone out rabbiting whose greyhound chases a hare. How will he handle such enforcement issues?
Alun Michael: Such casual incidents would certainly not be caught by the Act. If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the Committee stage of the previous Bill, he will see that spurious points of that kind were raised fairly repetitiously then.
The point is that the registrar and the tribunal will have to deal with the evidence that comes before them in the light of criteria established in legislation by the House. Those principles will be very clear. An applicant will have to demonstrate utility, and show that he or she could not have reached the same end without causing suffering. Applicants will have to satisfy those two criteria: it is as simple as that. If they satisfy the criteria, they will be able to undertake the activity; if they cannot satisfy them, they will not.
Glenda Jackson: I regret to tell my right hon. Friend that most of my constituents who have been campaigning for a total ban on hunting with dogs well before the issue came before the House would have regarded his golden thread as somewhat pinchbeck if there had been no opportunity for the Bill to be amended so that the House could yet again debate the issue of a total ban. May I say that I am grateful to him for reiterating that if the House does return the result it has returned so many times in the past, he will exercise the Parliament Act?
Alun Michael: I ask my hon. Friend to consider this question: did she believe that she was voting for a total ban when she voted for the Deadline 2000 option—as I believe she did—in the previous Parliament? In fact, that option did not constitute a total ban. Some activities were allowed to continue because it was felt that they had utility and should not be banned. The Bill that I have introduced is not some form of shopping list. It enshrines the principles of utility and of eradicating cruelty. I hope that those two principles will command my hon. Friend's support, and that the Bill, which I shall publish later today, will do the same.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that there is no distinction of principle between shooting, hunting and angling? They are, in substance, the same, and in a free society individuals should be entitled to participate in all of them. Furthermore, it is the business of this House to protect minorities, not to trample on their rights. In a free society, the golden thread should be the liberty of the individual, not the tyranny of the majority.
Alun Michael: I am tempted to ask whether there is a doctor in the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should try to keep his temper, because then

767
he would be able to deal coolly and objectively with the principles that I am putting to this House. He is one of those who pressed me to deal with illegal hare coursing. This Bill will do that, and will do so according to the criteria that he suggested in a letter to me. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made himself absurd.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend said that his proposition would settle the matter, but on reflection he must admit that, if there is a shabby compromise or a golden fudge, this issue will return time and again. This Parliament has a Labour majority of 160-odd. Some 400 Labour Members stood firm before, and if the third way is introduced, they will do so again. Let us get on with it and settle the matter.
Alun Michael: I do not expect that a statement from me will be sufficient to satisfy Labour Members; they will have to look at the legislation. I believe that they—that includes my hon. Friend—are reasonable and sensible people who will ask—[Interruption.] Well, Conservative Members may not agree, but I believe that to be true. I believe that my hon. Friend and other Labour Members will do me the favour of looking at the Bill and asking whether it deals with the issue of cruelty. I can assure them that it does, and that there is no fudge in it, be it golden fudge or dark fudge. My hon. Friend will have to visit those parts of the country where fudge is produced because he will not find it in my statement or in the Bill.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Nowhere in the admirable Burns report, nor in the excellently conducted hearings in Portcullis House—I pay tribute to the Minister for the way in which he chaired them—was any cruelty proved. It is therefore a mystery to us why the Bill should be predicated on such a basis. A total of 407,000 people marched peacefully in London to express their anxieties about the havoc wreaked on the countryside by this Government. I want the Minister to know that hunting will fight this provision, and hunting will be right.
Alun Michael: We treated with courtesy the people who marched through London a few weeks ago. They sent a variety of messages about the needs of the countryside, however, and there was a degree of muddle in that regard. Nevertheless, we responded to them with respect. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges the value of the Burns report. It provided not a conclusion on recommendations for legislation, but a strong basis of evidence, on which I have built through the evidence that I have taken.
On cruelty, the activity of hare coursing has no utility. The intention is to test the speed and agility of the dogs, not to protect livestock or anything like that. That is why it can be concluded that that activity cannot be allowed, as it does not pass the cruelty test.
I have looked carefully at all the evidence in connection with the hunting of deer. It does not satisfy either the utility or the cruelty test, and that is why it is banned. The proposed process will allow us to test whether cruelty occurs, and that is surely fair and
768
reasonable. If the hon. Gentleman agrees that we should not do things that are cruel, he must be prepared to allow hunting to be tested against the evidence.
Mr. Ian Cawsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts to find a way forward on this matter, and for the early opportunity that the House will have to decide how it should be resolved. The Bill will be the starting point, but will he explain whether it will contain a presumption against the use of dogs to cull foxes? If not, will not the Bill be just another version of the middle way proposal? A BBC online poll this morning showed that 75 per cent. of respondents were against that option.
Alun Michael: There is a significant difference between the Bill and the middle way proposal, which I could not accept because it licensed cruelty—that is, it would have allowed cruelty on the part of those licensed to undertake the activity. I do not believe that to be right.
The starting point is that people wishing to undertake an activity with dogs will first have to show utility—that there is a reason, purpose or outcome worth pursuing, against the tests that my hon. Friend will see in the Bill when it is published later today. Secondly, they will have to show that the activity is not cruel—that there is no other way of dealing with the mischief that is less likely to cause suffering. I think that that proposal gets the balance right, as it will be for the applicant to show that both those tests are met.
There is a third reason why the Bill is not another version of the middle way. Even if an activity is allowed, it will have to be undertaken in a way that is not cruel. An automatic condition of any registration is that any activity undertaken as a result of the registration will have to be undertaken in a way that is not cruel. That is a very important principle, and it is built into the Bill.
Hywel Williams: Does the Minister accept that there are particular issues associated with hunting in Wales? They have to do with the continued viability of upland farming, and with the difficulties that the regulation of hunting on foot—and especially its possible abolition by the back door—could cause rural communities. The hunting issue in Scotland is to be decided by the Scottish Assembly, and I am informed that hunting in Northern Ireland will be dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Will the Minister say why the Welsh Assembly is not looking at the matter?
In addition, will the independent tribunal be a national Welsh body or a national English body, or is the Minister suggesting that it will be a supranational body covering both England and Wales?
Alun Michael: The Welsh Assembly has had an opportunity to consider the matter and one of its Committees undertook some hearings before providing its views. I wrote to all members of the Assembly, as well to everyone in this House and another place, inviting them to provide evidence and their views on the matter before I considered the legislation that I would bring forward. If there are circumstances that justify activity in a particular area, as the hon. Gentleman has described, it will be for the registrar and the tribunal to

769
be satisfied that the tests of utility and cruelty have been met. I can confirm that the registrar and tribunal will be national and will deal with the matter in England and Wales.
Mr. Mike Hall: My right hon. Friend served on the Standing Committee considering the Bill brought forward in 2000. He will therefore know that that Bill, had it reached the statute book, would have banned the hunting with dogs of foxes, deer, mink and hare. My constituents will not be able to understand why, if the Bill is to ban hunting with dogs of hare and deer, it cannot also ban the hunting of foxes? I want the decision to be taken not by tribunal but by the House of Commons.
Alun Michael: I have said that the previous legislation was designed in a different way, listing activities that could not be undertaken. I have sought to put in the Bill the basic principles of utility and cruelty that we debated at great length in Committee and on the Floor of the House on the previous occasion. The purpose is to eradicate cruelty. That is the mischief that we should be addressing, and the Bill will address it.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the small minority on this side of the House who deplore hunting with hounds have been appalled at the way in which a Government who claim to be a Government of principle have used every device and trick for the past five years to prevent the House of Commons from coming to a decision on the matter. What is the point of having a democratic Parliament if Members are not allowed to come to a decision on an issue that they believe to be fundamental to a civilised society?
Alun Michael: I have made it clear that the first point about the Bill is that it deals with the principles. It starts from the point of principle. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the Government pride themselves on applying principles. Secondly, it Alun Michael: I have made it clear that the first point about the Bill is that it deals with the principles. It starts from the point of principle. The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the Government pride themselves on applying principles. Secondly, it is for the House to take a decision. I have a responsibility to bring forward proposals to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue. I have sought to do that and I shall also seek to persuade the hon. Gentleman as well as other right hon. and hon. Members that I have got it right.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: Is it not usually the case that he who tries to ride two horses with one golden thread falls through the middle and gets trampled by both sides? Will not the Bill be seen outside for what it really is—a sell-out on the main question of banning the hunting of foxes with dogs?
Alun Michael: The Bill will be seen in that way only if it is misrepresented, and I hope that it will not be misrepresented by anyone in the House. The Bill is based on principle rather than prejudice. It provides a framework that allows those principles to be applied in any particular circumstances. I know that my hon.
770
Friend is concerned about cruelty. I invite him to look at the Bill once it is published and I hope that he will be satisfied that it deals with the problem of cruelty.
Mr. Adrian Flook: The Minister has labelled thousands of my constituents as cruel, as they follow a hunt—the Devon and Somerset stag hounds or the Quantock stag hounds. He will not be thanked or respected for that. Thousands of my constituents will lose their liberty and many hundreds of them will lose their livelihood. Given the social and economic impact of the Minister's decision to ban stag hunting, what action will he take to ensure that those in my constituency are helped?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman needs to ask himself whether he considers it right for people to have the liberty to be cruel. Surely not. The House has previously said that that is not a liberty that it can support. I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the evidence and at the Bill. He will see that it tests any activity against the two principles of whether there is good reason for undertaking the activity and whether cruelty is involved. It is against those two tests that I have looked at the evidence on deer hunting and stag hunting and reached a conclusion that I believe to be grounded firmly in the evidence.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Britain's 2 million-plus coarse anglers who have steadfastly refused to be conned or hoodwinked by the hunt lobby and their supporters on the Opposition Benches into supporting the doomed cause of hunting with hounds? Will he confirm that not only are field sports such as angling and shooting safe with the Government but they are being enhanced and supported as never before?
Alun Michael: I am happy, as always, to support my hon. Friend in his passionate support for angling and the country sport of shooting.
Lembit Öpik: I speak in a personal capacity and as joint chair of the all-party middle way group. Does the Minister accept that the rhetoric about a ban ignores the fact that the Scottish Parliament proved the impracticality of legislating for a ban? Does he agree that a regulatory solution would provide us with the best chance of balancing animal welfare considerations with civil liberties as long as people stick to the facts from the three-day hearing, where the Countryside Alliance, Countdown to a Ban and the middle way group found much common ground?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that more common ground than might have been expected emerged from the hearings. When people who feel passionately about different views get into a room together, a lot can be learned if they are intelligent and willing to listen to each other. We all learned a great deal from those hearings.
The most important thing about the proposals that I have announced is that they are based on principle, not on drawing a line arbitrarily. They are based on principle and on testing the evidence against those principles.

Tomlinson Inquiry
4.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the inquiry into A-level standards.
My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Estelle Morris), invited Mike Tomlinson to carry out an independent inquiry into the concerns raised in September by headteachers' representatives and some examiners about the grading of students' work in this year's AS and A2-level examinations.
I would like to begin by thanking Mike Tomlinson for the substantial work that he has done. We all owe him a debt of gratitude.
The initial inquiry investigated allegations about the setting of standards for A-level grades this year, in particular, ensuring that the conversion from marks to grades was determined according to proper standards and procedures. Mr. Tomlinson's report of 27 September identified weaknesses in the way that the exams had been assessed this year and recommended a process of regrading. The outcomes of the regrading process were announced to Parliament on 15 October.
Mr. Tomlinson's final report, which is published today, states in paragraph 2:
"I remain convinced that my interim report and the subsequent review of grade boundaries dealt effectively with the major concerns and allegations about manipulation of the grading process."
That is a strong statement which I wholeheartedly endorse, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley for setting in motion the important process that has given rise to that statement, which gives confidence.
In paragraph 3 of the report published today, Mr. Tomlinson goes on to say:
"Action by the QCA and the other regulatory bodies on my earlier recommendations, allied to further proposals made in this final report will, in my view, secure the standards and integrity of next year's examinations."
Again, I endorse that view and express my confidence in the commitment of Sir Anthony Greener and Ken Boston at the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, working with my Department, to implement the necessary steps set out by Mr. Tomlinson.
I turn first to actions to secure the 2003 examinations. The QCA has already followed the recommendations given in Mr. Tomlinson's first report, working together with the examination boards, the regulatory authorities in Wales and Northern Ireland and the headteacher associations. As a further short-term measure to help restore confidence in the system, Mike Tomlinson has recommended that, for the January and summer 2003 examinations only, an appropriately qualified individual should observe and report publicly to the QCA board on the awarding process.
I agree with that recommendation and believe that Mr. Tomlinson is best qualified to fill that role. Therefore, after discussion with the QCA, I have invited Mr. Tomlinson to carry out that responsibility and I am pleased to say that he has accepted.
772
I have also accepted Mr. Tomlinson's other short-term recommendations, set out in paragraph 69 of his report, for further strengthening of the system for 2003. In addition, I have received from the QCA separate advice on the extra resources needed to deliver the 2003 exams securely. I can announce today that I am prepared to make available up to £6 million once detailed costing work has been completed by the QCA. That money will mainly be spent on steps to ensure that the necessary markers can be recruited.
Separately, the QCA has advised the Government that in order to ensure timely delivery of English results at both GCSE and AS/A2-level in summer 2003, the GCSE English literature examination should be moved prior to the 26 May bank holiday, to relieve pressure on markers. The Government have accepted that recommendation for this year only.
The second major part of Mr. Tomlinson's recommendations are his medium-term recommendations, to which I now turn. Mr. Tomlinson has gone about his task thoroughly and it follows extensive consultation. His proposals are designed to ensure maintenance of the A-level standard in future years.
Mr. Tomlinson's first recommendation is for the systematic reform of the administrative requirements for the AS and A2 examinations, in order to reduce the demands placed on schools and colleges by the awarding bodies' differing requirements and practices. I strongly agree with that recommendation, and I have asked the QCA to take that forward urgently with the awarding bodies.
Secondly, Mr. Tomlinson calls for the professionalisation of examining, to include high-quality training for examiners and examination officers, linked to career development. We welcome those suggestions and will take them forward jointly with the QCA.
Thirdly, Mr. Tomlinson recommends clarifying and making more transparent the relationships between my Department, the QCA and the awarding bodies, through a memorandum of understanding. I accept that recommendation, and can tell the House that work is in hand to draw up just such a memorandum. In addition, I will consider carefully the points made at paragraph 96 of his report, about the varied responsibilities of the QCA and how they can best be addressed.
Fourthly, Mr. Tomlinson's report calls for arrangements to ensure and reinforce confidence that standards over time are being safeguarded. He recommends that the QCA should establish an independent committee, whose role would be to review and, if necessary, advise publicly on whether standards are being maintained. The Government agree and will put that into effect.
Fifthly, Mr. Tomlinson recommends simplification to the rules governing resits and "cashing-in" of AS units. I accept that recommendation and I am asking the QCA to consider that urgently with the awarding bodies and with other partners.
Sixthly, the report recommends changes to the timetable for publication of A-level results, to give more time for marking and awarding. We will consult the QCA and other interests concerned, in particular university interests, colleges and schools, to see whether such a desirable change can be achieved.

773
Finally in the medium term, Mr. Tomlinson recommends increasing the use of information and communications technology in the administration and marking of public examinations and eventually in the examination process. We agree that this issue needs to be addressed, and I am asking the QCA to put forward fully costed options, which I will consider positively.
In the longer term, Mr. Tomlinson has identified two further issues for consideration. The first is the decoupling of AS and A2 examinations, to create two free-standing qualifications as part of the 14-to-19 policy developments. Mr. Tomlinson suggests that consideration should be given at the same time to other changes in the design of A-level assessment. We agree that these issues are important, and we will consider them as part of the 14-to-19 reforms in the next steps document on this matter to be published early in the new year.
Secondly, Mr. Tomlinson calls for further work on the practicality of introducing a post-qualifications admission system for entry to higher education. Together with the QCA, universities, colleges and schools, we will explore the practicality of moving to such a system.
The AS/A2 examination is a fundamentally sound system. It will become a better system as a result of Mr. Tomlinson's work. But, as he says,
"The standard has not been lowered if an increased proportion of students meet it as a consequence of improved teaching and hard work by students".
I invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to join me today in paying tribute to Mike Tomlinson's first class work in carrying through the issues that now need to be tackled, and I today commit the Government to carrying through the recommendations of his report.
Mr. Damian Green: I thank the Secretary of State for the early sight of his statement and I echo his thanks to Mike Tomlinson and his team for their work in preparing the two reports that he has produced.
This summer's A-level fiasco was the worst crisis in the history of public exams in this country. Tens of thousands of young people and their parents were left uncertain about the A-level marks awarded for a period of weeks. Those students and their parents owe a vote of thanks to the head teachers who insisted, against the assurances of those running the exam system, that there was indeed something fishy going on.
What today's announcement needs to mark is a fresh start for the exam system. The Tomlinson report and the Secretary of State's response will be judged against five criteria. Has the exam system been freed from the suspicion of political interference? Will exam standards be maintained over time? Will the marking system cope with the number of exams? Are young people being asked to take too many exams? Does the exam system work efficiently with the university admissions system? Today's report and the Secretary of State's response meet some of those tests, but not all of them; and will therefore, sadly, fail to give schools and their pupils the exam system that they deserve.
774
Some of the Tomlinson findings are sensible, and I am glad that the Secretary of State is acting on them. First, I welcome the announcement that he will set up an independent committee to advise on whether standards are being maintained year by year. We called for an independent inquiry into this subject back in August, and the Minister for School Standards was particularly diligent in repeatedly rejecting that idea. Today, the Secretary of State has rejected the Government's previous policy. That is a welcome U-turn, and we look forward to many more from him.
Secondly, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to be more positive in welcoming Tomlinson's desire to separate the AS and A2 exams, as a first step towards a serious review of exams post-GCSE and, indeed, including GCSE. Again, we have been calling for that review and a cut in the number of exams for some time, and the Government have so far rejected it. I do not expect the full damascene conversion yet, but an indication that he is turning towards the light would be welcome today.
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether running the current system effectively would take an additional 50,000 examiners? That was one of the figures mentioned at the press conference this morning. If so, does he acknowledge that radical surgery is required to keep the system running efficiently?
Fourthly, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what his plans are on changing the timing of the exams or the university year? Does he recognise that taking and marking A-levels earlier in the school year would allow the university admissions process to be smoother, more considered and less stressful for all concerned?
Fifthly and most importantly, I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reject Tomlinson's view that no radical change is needed in the relationship between the QCA and the Government. A watchdog whose chairman can be summarily fired by a Minister is a watchdog with no real teeth. The suspicion that exam results are being manipulated for ministerial convenience is not only damaging for the exam system, but insulting to hundreds of thousands of young people who work hard on those exams.
The marks must be not only independent and fair; they must be seen to be independent and fair, so the QCA itself must be independent. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to that goal? He has a huge task to restore confidence in our exams. That will take more than a short-term fix. Everyone who will take A-levels in the next few years deserves a simpler, better and fairer system. The shambles of this summer must never be repeated.
Mr. Clarke: Well, I completely agree with one thing that the hon. Gentleman said: there is a need to mark a fresh start in this approach. Unfortunately, his statement simply did not do that and took a series of misleading and wrong paths. Let me deal with the points of substance.
The first and most important thing that we have to do—it was the core of Mr. Tomlinson's recommendations—is to establish stability in our examinations system. Stability is very important for the immediate future. Pupils, teachers and the parents of those starting or contemplating AS and A2 exams should know that we will retain AS and A2-levels for the

775
foreseeable future. Although we will continue to debate future improvements in the context of our Green Paper on education for 14 to 19-year-olds, including the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, it is important for us to state that no change will be made without timely and effective consultation and consensus across the education system.
Our immediate priority—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not share it—must be to rebuild confidence in the system and ensure that this year's problems are not repeated. I repeat that Mr. Tomlinson's report provides a very sound basis for ensuring that they are not.
Mr. Tomlinson has said that a period of about five years needs to elapse before we begin to make substantive changes in these areas, for precisely the reason that I have just given. It is therefore striking that the Opposition spokesman should call for immediate changes in the AS and A2 examination systems, immediate changes in timings in relation to the university year, immediate changes in the burden of school assessment, and immediate changes in terms of the process at issue with universities—[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Ashford says from a sedentary position that he did not say that, but his statement specifically called for precisely those things. That is a key point for him to identify.
The Leader of the Opposition said that A-levels were not worth the paper on which they were written. The Opposition education spokesman needs to make his party's position absolutely clear. A straight choice exists: join us in putting stability and confidence into our examination system; or pursue what he calls a radical review by tearing it all up, starting again, and demolishing the confidence that people up and down the country have, and should have, in our education system.
Mr. Phil Willis: May I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement? I also join the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in thanking Mike Tomlinson for his report; indeed, I thank him for both his reports. It is interesting that his recommendation in paragraph 69 was the first on which action was taken—I am sure that that was the swiftest action on a recommendation ever. It is welcome that Mike Tomlinson will do that job, too, over the next 18 months, and we are grateful to the Secretary of State for that.
There are many reasons for us to be grateful for the Tomlinson report. The administration of three different boards, in which Mike Tomlinson has clearly identified enormous room for errors, must be sorted out immediately—I hope that the Secretary of State did not have a long time scale in mind when he responded to the hon. Member for Ashford. I recommend that the Secretary of State look to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to perform that role. All the exam boards have assured me that they do not want to be involved with the entry and administrative system, and giving that role to UCAS, for example, would be a sensible way forward.
I also urge the Secretary of State to introduce an individual tracking system for every student's work during the process, as one of the most frustrating
776
elements this year was that no one could find out where they were within the system and how to deal with it. We welcome post-A-level entry to university, which is a sensible way forward. We also support the decoupling of AS and A2 examinations, and the ending of commercial conflicts of interest within the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, an element hidden in the report but a very important one. We recognise, too, that AS and A2 results should not be compared directly with the old A-levels. That was at the root of one of the problems.
We particularly welcome the call for an end to annual arguments about grade inflation, as paranoia rather than wrongdoing was at the root of this year's fiasco. Far from putting robust new structures in place, however, the report simply asks the Government, the QCA and the boards to hatch a way of working that suits them best. Schools, employers and universities will not be involved. What is the point of a memorandum of understanding between the Department for Education and Skills and the QCA when the Secretary of State retains the power to hire and fire the chief executive and to second members of his Department to senior QCA positions? Surely the Secretary of State should order the break-up of the QCA and establish an independent examination regulator, with that sole task, which would be directly accountable to Parliament and not to his Department.
Today's statement does not go far enough in preventing any repetition of this year's events. Changes made to grade boundaries should be published as a matter of course, not hidden, as they have been this year. Examiners from other boards should be present during the awarding process to make it less incestuous. Adjusting candidates' grades without reference to their scripts—which was identified as a problem by Nick Tate, of the then School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, in 1997—should be ruled out. Will the Secretary of State rule out that practice now?
Where in the statement is there any satisfaction for the thousands of students robbed of their legitimate grades this summer? The report says that any remaining concerns are being "dealt with". Peter Chapman, the head of the Knights Templar school, does not think that they are being dealt with, and Mike Tomlinson agrees. In a recent letter to the head teacher, Mr. Tomlinson says:
"I am not at all surprised by your continuing pursuit of the above concerns … I have to be honest and say I cannot personally see anything that can be done".
That is an outrageous statement to make about examination grades for this year. Peter Chapman's psychology students are now preparing for their resits in January, but they have had their scripts back from the examination board without a single mark on them. There is nothing to show where they went wrong, and there is nothing in the statement that will sort that out.
Will the Secretary of House tell the House whether an AS grade from January 2003 will be half an A-level? Will it have that credibility when students take it, or does he expect another change to take place? Finally, can he put his hand on the Dispatch Box and tell the thousands of

777
students who took their exams this summer that they all have the grades that they deserve and that they are accurate?
Mr. Clarke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his relatively constructive approach to the statement. I want to highlight the point that he made when he called for an end to annual arguments about grade inflation. He is absolutely right to do that, and I associate myself completely with his remarks. It is shameful that, summer after summer, the work of teachers and students in improving their education performance is demeaned by commentators in the press and in other areas. If the hon. Gentleman and I can make common cause on at least one thing, it is that we should try to deal with that problem in the future. He was right to say what he said.
On the specifics, I confirm that we regard getting a common administrative approach in the three examination boards as a top and immediate priority. I have committed myself to that and do so again now. I confirm that an individual tracking system is a worthwhile and positive idea. That is why I am asking the QCA to make recommendations to me about the communications and information technology that will be an important element of making such a suggestion happen.
I can say that we will consider the question of the post-A-level qualification and decoupling in the context of the inquiry of my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards into 14-to-19 education. We will see where we go. However, I want to make it clear that we are not proposing any immediate change in the balance between the examinations. That would be wrong and destabilising. However, if the hon. Gentleman asks me whether we are prepared to look at a different relationship in the future, the answer is yes, through the vehicle of my hon. Friend's report which will appear in a couple of months.
On the memorandum of understanding and the question of independence, all I can say is that the hon. Gentleman has a serious point, as does Mr. Tomlinson. Mr. Tomlinson's specific recommendation to deal with the immediate situation was that we should remove the uncertainties now, and that is why he recommended clarifying and making more transparent the relationships between my Department, the QCA and the awarding bodies through a memorandum of understanding. I am implementing what he recommended to get the answers right. However, as I pointed out in my statement, paragraph 96 of Mr. Tomlinson's report says:
"I share the misgivings expressed in the Quinquennial Review about QCA's responsibilities for delivery of the key and basic skills qualifications and Key Stage tests, and recommend that these should be separated from QCA's other responsibilities and placed in the hands of a separate body. QCA should retain its regulatory oversight of these activities."
In making that recommendation, he highlighted precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman made. I can confirm from the Dispatch Box that the issue needs to be properly considered with all the organisations to see where we go.
778
I accept the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point—in fairness to the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), he made it too—that it is exceptionally important to have a system that is seen to be independent and effective. The focus of Mr. Tomlinson's recommendations was quite correctly on putting the current situation in order by dealing with the problem in the best way that we can.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether I could rewrite history, and the short answer is I cannot. However, I can try to ensure that we understand what happened and that we take the steps that will ensure that history does not repeat itself. We are doing that in accepting this report. It is the right way for us to go.
Valerie Davey: Does the Secretary of State agree that part of the difficulty last summer was the lack of understanding of the process by those involved and, perhaps more significantly, by the education media? Clarity must be established. What will the Department do to ensure that students, parents, schools and the media fully understand the process?
Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose comments are perceptive. The Tomlinson report makes a series of recommendations on clarifying relationships so that confusions cannot recur. I announced my acceptance of the recommendations and confirm that it will be part of our responsibility to ensure that heads, and through them, parents, fully understand the processes. I hope that that will ensure that the misunderstandings will not take place again.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State cannot deny that the fiasco happened under a Labour Government's watch of five years in office. It is not acceptable to blame everyone else.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he anticipates major changes in five years. What does he have to say to all those young people who will take A and AS-levels in the next three to four years? Is it that their exams are inadequate and that he intends to make substantial changes to them? If so, that will be very demotivating.
Mr. Clarke: I am not going to say that the exams over the next three or four years are not worth the paper they are written on, because it would not be true. Indeed, it is damaging to public and political debate that a key Opposition party takes that stance. It is also striking that the hon. Gentleman supports his Front-Bench spokesman who proposes major changes in the next two or three years and wants to rip up the current A and AS system. As I said, that is not the right approach. We need to get confidence and stability in the system that we have and to ensure that it works in the way that it can. That is what we will do. We will not go around trying out fancy ideas here, there and everywhere and rip up the system in the way that the Conservatives advocate.
Helen Jones: I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about securing a supply of examiners and providing them with career development. Does he recognise, however, that many will have to be recruited from serving teachers? As part of his review, will he consider ways in which acting as an examiner can

779
be a key part of a teacher's career development and appropriately rewarded as such? Will he discuss that with the teacher unions?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why Mr. Tomlinson's recommendations about professionalisation—not a nice word, I know—is the right way to go. I can confirm that we will deal with the matter as she suggests. I can also confirm that the extra resources will be designed to ensure that we get a more professional system that works in the best way possible. Marking an assessment should be an important part of a teacher's experience and should help to enable them to teach in various ways. The more we can help that to happen, the better it will be.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will recall that Mr. Tomlinson's initial report said that the examining boards were not able to aggregate AS and A2-level results in a way that set an acceptable and commonly understood standard, which was one of the problems. What does he intend to do about that? Judging from his answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), he is proposing to keep 40 per cent. of the demands on students, which will represent 50 per cent. of the marks at AS-level. How do Mr. Tomlinson or the Secretary of State propose to set a standard against which subsequent results can be judged?
Mr. Clarke: As I think I said, the QCA has acted on Mr. Tomlinson's initial report. For example, it sent out exemplar material on precisely how to do that. I am surprised that the discussion has come to this. The choice is simple: do we try to make the existing AS and A2-level system work for children who go through schools in the next few years and give them the confidence that it works; or do we try to rebalance the system fundamentally and change the system yet again? It is clear from all the representations that I receive from teachers and others that there has been too much change and they want a period of stability. That is Mr. Tomlinson's recommendation and I think it is the right way to proceed. If the Opposition want to make all the changes in the next year or so, they should come out and say so, but I am not sure many educationists would agree with them.
Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome the Government's positive response to the recommendations in the report, particularly the review of the QCA's varied responsibilities. However, are not the difficulties that we have experienced over the past few months largely due to the fact that we still do not have a properly criterion-referenced marking system, so we face the annual review of grade boundaries? In addition, is it not the case that our young people, particularly in the 14-to-19 phase, are massively over-examined and that we still place too much emphasis on external assessment? Does Mr. Tomlinson's report say anything about that, and do the Government have a view on those points?
Mr. Clarke: We cannot get to the position of having marking systems that are 100 per cent. criterion-referenced, although we can move in that direction. In fact, that is what Mr. Tomlinson recommends and what we need to do. There are serious issues about ensuring not only that the administration of the different boards is consistent but that we have a common approach in the areas mentioned by my hon. Friend, and those are matters for the future.
Mr. Tomlinson does have points to make about over-examination, and as I said in my statement, he raises the serious question of whether we have got right the balance between assessment and learning, and I take that seriously. To be blunt, if Mr. Tomlinson, a former chief inspector of schools, and Ken Boston, the chief executive of the QCA, are saying that there are issues to be addressed, we would be very foolish to take no account of that. However, the right way to do so is through the review of 14-to-19 education being conducted by the Minister for School Standards, which will involve consultation throughout the system. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater would be a mistake, but we have to look at the situation in the round and take account of points such as those expressed by my hon. Friend and of professional opinion.
Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Secretary of State understand that those of us who are parents of students who had the misfortune to be caught up in the Government's fiasco this summer with A2 and AS-levels genuinely believe that the qualifications that our sons and daughters received are not worth the paper they are written on because they significantly underestimate their achievements? Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question that he tried to duck when it was asked by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough? Does he believe that all those students got the grades that they deserved? If not, will he take the one remedy that he has at his disposal and organise a full remarking of those exams?
Mr. Clarke: This is absolutely extraordinary. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, although I know that he did not accept my answer: I do not believe that it is possible to rewrite history. We have to follow the line set out by the hon. Member for Ashford and make a fresh start. I am genuinely surprised that Opposition Members seem to want to assert, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) did in his question, that A-levels and AS-levels are not worth the paper they are written on. That is simply not true, and it is not an acceptable way to proceed. I find it extraordinary that Conservative Member after Conservative Member continues to reinforce the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. Parents and teachers throughout the country—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman should not dwell too heavily on the policies of the Opposition; he is answering for the policies of the Government.
Ms Meg Munn: The Education and Skills Select Committee has been considering this issue, and the three exam boards explained to us in some detail that they arrive at their gradings using different processes. Will consideration be given to the best way of ensuring that there is greater transparency in the awarding of grades, because we should not jump to the conclusion that two exam boards got it right and one got it wrong?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise that point. We need to take precisely the considered approach that she suggests, making sure that the exam boards are working in sync. The implication of today's statement is that the QCA is working, with our support, to try to achieve precisely the result that my hon. Friend requests.
Mr. Keith Simpson: I wonder if I may try to elicit a response from the Minister, who seems to be under the impression that following a statement he does not have to answer our questions. This is a very straightforward one. Who was responsible this summer for what most parents, most teachers and most pupils affected was a great cock-up?
Mr. Clarke: Mr. Tomlinson was extremely clear about that, and I shall repeat his analysis. He said that three main factors contributed to the situation—first, the perceived pressure on exam boards from the QCA; secondly, the lack of guidance on the level of attainment expected for a particular grade in an individual paper; and thirdly, the lack of common understanding of the standard required to ensure that the overall A-level standard was maintained. That is a balanced judgment, and I accept it.
Mr. Mark Simmonds: Considering the contents of the Tomlinson inquiry and the previous Tomlinson report on the same subject, and bearing in mind Tomlinson's recommendation that the QCA should report directly to the Secretary of State's Department, could he explain why Sir William Stubbs was sacked?
Mr. Clarke: I have nothing further to add to what has been said previously. It is public knowledge that Sir William has taken, or is considering, legal action, so the matter will be resolved by the usual processes.

Tomlinson Inquiry
  BILL PRESENTED
    HUNTING
    Secretary Margaret Beckett, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Hain and Mr. Alun Michael, presented a Bill to make provision about hunting wild mammals with dogs; to prohibit hare coursing; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. Explanatory notes to be printed. [Bill 10].
Orders of the Day

  Communications Bill
  [Relevant documents: The Report from the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Bill, Session 2001–02, HL 169-I and HC 876-I, and the Government Response thereto, Cm 5646.]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I must announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), and that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in the debate.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the Government have set a new precedent today? Perhaps it was a Modernisation Committee proposal that we were unaware had been introduced. Can you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in future when a Bill has its First Reading, the House can always expect a Government statement, such as we had today? I think that this is probably the first time that that has ever happened.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair can make no such guarantee, but no doubt Ministers will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.
  5.6 pm
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  After an almost unprecedented period of scrutiny and debate, we are now proud to he able to present the Communications Bill to the House. I say we, because the Bill is very much the result of cross-departmental collaboration with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, and the Department of Trade and Industry.
  I shall take the House through the Bill's main points and principles. To begin at the beginning, the communications industry is one of the fastest growing sectors of the UK economy, and has been growing at 10 per cent. a year for the past decade. The infrastructure of the future needs fast, efficient and affordable communication—telecommunications, the internet and broadcasting. It requires the best competitive environment, effective regulation and continued public and private investment in the technologies of the future. The communications industries are a major driver of our economy, and provide jobs for hundreds of thousands of British workers—the jobs of the future, not the past.
  However, communications is about much more than economics. The Bill deals with the means by which our society speaks to itself and, as it were, hears the echo. It is the means by which we talk to the world. It is a shaper of our culture, our identity and our values. For the Government, therefore, the Bill is not simply a device to regulate or deregulate an industry; it plays a vital role in every one of our wider aspirations for Britain. It will

  783
  give consumers choice—the variety that they demand and deserve—and will give citizens the information that they need. It will free the industry of unnecessary interference, give it freedom to grow and diversify, allow it an opportunity to change as the world of communications changes, and to gain access to new sources of investment, as well as new ideas and challenges. It prepares us for a digital era.
  The Bill will preserve what has always been our proudest boast: that we have the best free broadcast media in the world. It will give public service broadcasting a new lease of life. I am sure that all hon. Members share the aims that I have outlined. Like the Bill, those aims are ambitious.
  I shall take hon. Members briefly through the history of the development of our proposals.
  Mr. Chris Mullin: Have I understood correctly that the Bill will allow, for example, an American-owned corporation to buy ITV, while no reciprocal right exists for a British-owned corporation to buy an American company? If so, how have we got into that extraordinary position?
  Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a close, long-time follower of such issues. The answer is yes, the Bill would allow an American company to own ITV or our other commercial public service broadcasters. However, it would subject any American, Japanese or Australian owner to a tough content regime that is intended to maintain the public service nature of our public service broadcasting. My hon. Friend also asked about reciprocity. We are opening negotiations to secure reciprocal agreements with the Americans, but as I have said on several occasions, we do not perceive reciprocity as a precondition of lifting the current restriction on foreign ownership of our terrestrial television channels.
  Pete Wishart: Is the Secretary of State saying that she is comfortable with the prospect of, for example, Disney or Microsoft owning and operating our ITV 3 channel?
  Tessa Jowell: Given circumstances in which any Italian, French, Swedish or German media company could own our media, it would be inconsistent to preclude from the possibility of ownership American, Australian, Japanese or other markets that could provide our media with badly needed investment.
  I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) is in his place. He, with the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, published the White Paper "A New Future for Communications" in December 2000. It established a vision for the future of the telecommunications, broadcasting and radio spectrum in the United Kingdom. It had several aims, which included giving the converging communications industries a modern regulatory framework, combining stability with competition, and promoting innovation, skills and enterprise.
  In November last year we consulted on the proposals for the reform of media ownership rules that had not been included in the White Paper. We consulted in a
  784
  framework on ways of promoting competition through deregulation while recognising that competition alone is not enough to safeguard the nature of the media in the UK. We consulted on methods of protecting plurality and diversity, removing outdated and inconsistent rules and providing greater flexibility and investment. Furthermore, the paving Bill for establishing the single regulator, Ofcom, received Royal Assent in March and became the Office of Communications Act 2002.
  In May we published the draft Communications Bill for further public consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny by a Committee of both Houses of Parliament. Lord Puttnam, who chaired the Committee, and the other members made a tremendous contribution to improving the draft Bill. That process established the value of pre-legislative scrutiny, which enabled contributions to be made to the development of major policy proposals as well as the provision of detailed drafting comments.
  In that context, I would like to thank the hon. Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey), and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), for East Lothian (Anne Picking) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan) for their contributions to the work of the Committee.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what explains the differential treatment of electronic networks and services in part 2 of the Bill from that of broadcasters in part 3? Will she also explain why the Bill fails to bring the BBC fully within the auspices of Ofcom, so that it could be fined for any breaches of its existing obligations to observe due impartiality in matters of political and industrial controversy and in relation to public policy?
  Tessa Jowell: I know that the relationship between the BBC and the regulator will be a major focus of today's debate—
  Andrew Mitchell: You bet!
  Tessa Jowell: I am sure that there are plenty of "You bets" on both sides of the House on that matter. I shall come to that matter later, if the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will forgive me.
  Mr. Bercow: Don't forget.
  Tessa Jowell: I certainly will not forget. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's first question on the differential treatment, we do not intend to regulate the internet, but—as he will understand more fully once he has heard more of what I have to say—we intend broadcasting to be subject to a tough content regulatory regime.
  Lord Puttnam's Committee reported in August and the Government responded in October. We accepted more than 120 of its 148 recommendations, including—to pick up on the point raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham—the recommendation that Ofcom should be able to fine the BBC for breaches of tier 1 and tier 2 obligations. The Committee's conclusions also led to our redrafting aspects of the Bill to clarify Ofcom's duty

  785
  to increase the size of the Ofcom board and to clarify the nature of self-regulation. I believe that the process of consultation with Parliament, the wider industry and the public has greatly improved the Bill. As a result, we now have a different Bill—in a number of respects—from the one published in draft in May.
  Mr. George Osborne: I believe that this is the first Government Bill that the Secretary of State responsible has been unable to sign off as being compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Will the right hon. Lady assure us that all its clauses will be fine, and will not be struck down in the courts after we have enacted the Bill?
  Tessa Jowell: I will come to a full explanation of why the Bill is, in one particular respect, not compatible with the European convention on human rights, and set out for the House the way in which I intend to deal with that.
  I shall run quickly through the new provisions in the Bill. It now includes provisions for a new newspaper merger regime that strikes the right balance between deregulation and the protection of essential public interests. On local radio ownership, to allow greater consolidation, we have moved to a minimum of two plus one local radio owners from the three plus one in the draft Bill. As a result of the reorganisation of the spectrum on the multiplexes following the relicensing by the Independent Television Commission, we have also been able to remove the restriction on religious bodies holding national digital radio service licences. I know that there has been a tremendous amount of correspondence with hon. Members on both sides of the House about this. We always said that the restriction was created because of spectrum scarcity, and, now that there is more available spectrum, we have lifted that restriction.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: I am pleased to hear of the changes on local radio ownership, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Bill remains proof against the continuing attacks of the large radio industry on the ownership, content and diversity measures, particularly clause 302 and schedule 14?
  Tessa Jowell: Yes. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised that point, which, again, is a concern to the House. We are determined that deregulation of ownership, which we believe is right to promote investment, should not in any way compromise standards, the discipline of adhering to licence conditions or what is defined in the Bill as localness—the quintessential nature of local radio. Ofcom will have powers to check, or dipstick, in areas where radio consolidation has taken place to ensure that the local character of local radio has been preserved.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I have written to my right hon. Friend on this point. She has said that provision will be made for faith organisations to go on the airwaves, but what about those organisations that do not have faith, such as the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society, which are denied access to Thought for the Day on the "Today"
  786
  programme? Will they be included, or is the provision just for religious organisations and their fellow travellers?
  Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which I am willing to consider further. I hope that it is aired in Committee, and if necessary, I shall offer further definition in the light of his intervention.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my right hon. Friend explain what the Bill will do to encourage investment in digital radio? For example, will it permit licence roll-overs?
  Tessa Jowell: One of the Bill's objectives is to promote the increase in digital radio, and one way to achieve that is through Government action. A year ago I approved seven new BBC digital radio stations. My hon. Friend will be aware that the price of digital radio equipment, which was very high, is beginning to fall. Take-up of digital radio is still low, but it will be driven by the fact that there will be stations worth listening to that are available only through digital. They will be the drivers for digital radio take-up, just as such stations are the drivers for digital television take-up.
  I must make progress on the Bill's content now, if I may. In the light of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee's report we clarified Ofcom's general duties. We strengthened the independence of the consumer panel and gave it powers to set up its own committee. We also limited its sphere of interest to companies with fewer than 10 employees.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Tessa Jowell: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to make progress. There will be another point in my speech at which he will want to intervene, I am sure.
  We have worked to get the provisions for television licensable content right, limiting regulation to broadcasting services. That underlines the potential for self-regulation.
  Also, in relation to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee's concerns about the capacity of the independent production sector, I asked the ITC to undertake a review to establish the facts about the market and its likely growth, and to make an assessment of issues that might adversely affect its long-term development.
  That was prompted by the Committee's concern about the timetable for—but not the principle of—the lifting of the restriction on foreign ownership. We have now received the ITC report, and copies of the summary have been made available to Members. I give notice that we may wish in due course to amend the Bill further after considering the ITC's proposals in more detail.
  Michael Fabricant: The right hon. Lady helpfully explained the scrutiny process relating to independent television production, but why did not the Committee, and why does not the Bill, examine the thorny question of independent radio production quotas? The right hon. Lady will know that the BBC has set itself an internal requirement to produce a minimum

  787
  10 per cent. quota. Why is that not enshrined in the Bill? If the principle is all right for television, why is it not all right for radio?
  Tessa Jowell: That is a fair point, which we will consider in the context of the programme supply review. We do not, however, want to be too restrictive. We do not want to impose new obligations on radio that might constrain its growth. That is the framework within which a proposition that I know to be in currency will be considered.
  In practice, use of the BBC licence fee as venture capital for the nation's creativity means ensuring a healthy market in programme supply and a vibrant, creative independent sector. I was pleased that the ITC report was welcomed by, among others, Lord Puttnam and the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television. That welcome is well deserved, reflecting the enormous amount of work that the ITC has done. It makes an extremely strong case for the integral role that an independent market will play in the future of broadcasting, especially given the changes in media ownership and the proposals to maintain production quotas. As I have said, we are considering the report carefully, and will amend the Bill further if necessary.
  Mr. John Redwood: Content regulation is censorship by another name. What guarantee can the Secretary of State offer that her actions will not give rise to a very interventionist system that would perpetuate the tyranny of the politically correct? What we want, and what all freedom-lovers want, is a diversity of views to be heard on the airwaves.
  Tessa Jowell: That is an interesting point. We are avowedly not returning to what might arguably be described as the pre-ITC censorship regime, when the regulator decided which programmes should be shown. We are placing that responsibility on the broadcaster, which is where it should be.
  Let me say something about political advertising—a point that was touched on by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). I have been unable to make a statement of compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of one provision in the Bill. This is the first time since the Act came into force that the Government have made such a statement at the outset of a Bill's passage. I consulted the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) earlier, gave him notice of the fact, and gave both Opposition spokespersons briefing.
  Although there will of course be an opportunity for this matter to be debated fully in Committee, I wanted to explain the position to the whole House. The decision to proceed with a Bill containing a provision of this kind was obviously exceptional, and was made only after careful deliberation and a full examination of both the legal arguments and the policy alternatives.
  For many years, successive Governments have maintained a complete ban on advertising of a political nature on television or radio. The Government's intention in this case is to continue with the current ban—a ban that was supported by the Neill committee m its 1998 report on funding of political parties—and to define more precisely what is meant by "political",so
  788
  that Ofcom may continue to use the broad reading of the word that existing regulators use. In that regard, I refer hon. Members to clause 309.
  However, a potential complication exists in the form of a judgment by the European Court of Human Rights against Switzerland, which maintained an apparently similar ban. That point was also noted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in examining the draft Bill, and I should like to place on the record my thanks to it for its helpful comments on the draft Bill in its 19th report. In response to the ECHR's judgment and to the Joint Committee's concerns, we looked hard at the current ban to see whether some minor changes would make it more certain that it was human rights compatible. Unfortunately, any such change would still allow substantial political advertising, and I hope that there is cross-party agreement that that would not be a desirable outcome. By denying powerful interests the chance to skew political debate, the current ban safeguards the public and democratic debate, and protects the impartiality of broadcasters.
  Having examined all the facts, and following extensive legal advice, I have concluded that very strong arguments could be advanced in favour of the ban contained in this Bill being compliant with the ECHR.
  Mr. Richard Allan: I have every sympathy with the point that the Secretary of State makes about wishing to maintain the ban on political advertising on television and radio. Can she tell us whether there are any current court cases concerning this issue—either in the UK under the Human Rights Act 1998, or continuing through the European Court of Human Rights process—or is the Swiss judgment the only one on the books?
  Tessa Jowell: The Swiss case is the only one that I am aware of at this point.
  Mr. Wyatt: Could you put the evidence in the Library so that we can all read it, and can you explain whether you can get through broadband—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but by now he should be using the appropriate parliamentary language. He is addressing the Chair, not the Minister, by using the second person.
  Mr. Wyatt: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Political advertising can be carried out through broadband technology; how will the legislation affect that?
  Tessa Jowell: On the second point, as I said in response to an intervention a few minutes ago, we are not seeking to regulate the internet. The ban applies to licensed broadcasting—that is the distinction. On my hon. Friend's very fair request, I will certainly ensure that an explanatory note is placed in the Library for Members' information.
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I want to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). My understanding is that the current restriction on religious broadcasters owning licences is being challenged under

  789
  the European Court of Human Rights. The Bill will not wholly remove that restriction, so perhaps the Secretary of State might like to look into that matter further.
  Tessa Jowell: I shall confirm my previous answer for the hon. Gentleman's benefit: I am not aware of other current challenges, but in preparing a note for the Library, I shall ensure that our intelligence on this matter is complete.
  The Government apply testing standards to the consideration of the compatibility of their legislation with the convention and, given the existence of the Swiss precedent, I must ask the House to consider this Bill with a section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 statement attached to it. That does not mean that we believe the Bill to be incompatible with the ECHR, and we would mount a robust defence if it were legally challenged. Of course, if that defence subsequently failed before the domestic courts, we would need to reconsider our position. Beyond that, we take our international obligations extremely seriously and we would seek to amend the ban in accordance with any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that ruled against the UK legislation. As things stand, however, the Government believe that it is right to ask the House to continue the ban on political advertising.
  I turn now to the substance of the Bill, which essentially has four themes: giving functions to Ofcom, implementing four European communications directives, ensuring the most effective management of the radio spectrum, and putting in place a framework for broadcasting and media.
  Part 1 of the Bill contains details of the functions that will be transferred or assigned to Ofcom, bringing together the functions currently exercised by the five regulators—the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission, the Director General of Telecommunications, the Radiocommunications Agency, and the Radio Authority.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: My right hon. Friend had an excellent record of involvement in disability matters before she came to the House. Is she aware that many organisations, including Mencap, are worried that Ofcom's duties do not include conducting research into whether people with disabilities are marginalised or embraced by the electronic revolution?
  Tessa Jowell: I assure my right hon. Friend that the Bill contains strong safeguards for the interests of disabled people. He is right to point out that the consumer panel's scope and terms of reference give ample opportunity for the sort of consultation that he has described.
  Part 1 of the Bill sets out the general duties of Ofcom and the establishment of the content board and the consumer panel. It also sets out more clearly how self-regulation fits in the new framework. We are giving a clear signal to the industry that, where self-regulation is effective, Ofcom can remove or reduce its regulations.
  I believe that the functions in Part I give Ofcom the opportunity to be much more than the sum of its parts. It is obvious, however, that the new organisation that is
  790
  Ofcom can be built not by words on a page but by the people who will run it. I am delighted that Lord Currie and his board are making good progress in tackling the enormous management task of forming the new organisation. Our aim remains, subject to the will of both Houses, to have Ofcom fully operational by the end of 2003.
  Part 2 of the Bill implements the Government's policy on spectrum management and four European directives concerned with electronic communications. It also deals with a number of other matters relating to electronic communications, such as the persistent misuse of electronic communications networks and services, and the regulation of premium-rate services.
  The implementation of the four directives will remove the need for 400 telecommunications licences. They will be replaced with a system of general authorisation and specific obligations to protect consumers and guarantee competition. That is a major deregulatory step. As many hon. Members are aware, the directives mean the UK cannot maintain telecommunications licences beyond 24 July next year.

  Although we can implement part of our proposals in respect of electronic communications by making regulations under the European Communities Act 1972, the limitation in that Act means that such regulation would be adequate only for an interim period. The Government hope, therefore, that in the interests of consumers and the industry, Members of this House and another place will consider the Bill in such a way that it may be able to secure Royal Assent before the summer recess next year.
  Finally, part 2 also sets out the framework for spectrum management in the future.
  Part 3 covers television and radio services. This is where we outline our policy on the protection of content standards and the remit for public service broadcasters. Part 3 also covers Ofcom's relationship with the BBC, and I am aware of the degree of contention that still surrounds that issue.
  Mr. Calum MacDonald: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Tessa Jowell: I should like to make some progress, if I may.
  The Bill will extend the public service broadcasting remit to the BBC as well as commercial public service broadcasters. It is very important that the House understand clearly how this works. Except for the regulation of accuracy and impartiality, which will remain the responsibility of the governors, Ofcom will regulate the BBC under regulatory tiers 1 and 2 and will also have the power to fine the BBC for any breaches under tiers one or two. Under tier 3, the BBC will be required to publish an annual statement of programme policy, as will the other public service broadcasters, report on performance against policy and consider Ofcom's guidance. Ofcom will also report on the fulfilment of the public service broadcasting remit, including the performance of the BBC, at least every five years.
  Michael Fabricant rose—
  Tessa Jowell: The BBC will be subject to general competition law and to the full force of such law should

  791
  it abuse its position. The BBC is a charter body; it has a special relationship with Parliament through the licence fee. The Government's position is that that relationship with Parliament should be preserved.
  Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I understand her point about regulation under tier 3. However, does she accept that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done? Does she understand that when a complaint is made against the BBC under the conditions of tier 3—programme content, in other words—and the governors decide that the complaint is not valid, many people outside Parliament will say that, even if the governors are correct, the BBC is its own judge and jury? For that reason, justice will not be seen to be done, and for that reason it will be wrong.
  Tessa Jowell: That is why I welcome the moves made by the chairman of the governors, in recognition of much of the criticism similar to that described by the hon. Gentleman, to increase transparency and distinguish between the governors' executive and regulatory role.
  I say to the House, the BBC and the other public service broadcasters that most of us on the Labour Benches—I hope—believe that the proposition strikes the right balance. The onus is very much on the BBC governors to show that they are able to discharge that rigorous and independent role that the House clearly wishes to see.
  Mr. MacDonald: I warmly welcome the provisions in part 3 that deal with minority language broadcasting, especially the setting up of a Gaelic media service, which is an important breakthrough. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the new service will be able to deliver content throughout the whole UK, not only in Scotland, provided of course that she finds a cost-effective and sensible way of doing so?
  Tessa Jowell: Those are exactly the type of proposals that will be examined in the review of Gaelic broadcasting that is currently under way—[Interruption.] I hear what Opposition Front-Bench Members are saying and I want to make clear how much importance the Government attach to the position and the secure future of Gaelic broadcasting. We believe that the provisions in the Bill set that future on a much more secure footing than has been the case in the past.
  Mr. Lansley: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is a member of the Committee.
  Tessa Jowell: Very well, I give way.
  Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I was beginning to think that I would be left out.
  The right hon. Lady referred in flattering terms to the work of the Joint Scrutiny Committee, but one of our most important recommendations was that the many duties laid on Ofcom should not be treated equally but
  792
  that primacy should be given to the duty of furthering the interests of consumers through competition and furthering the interests of citizens. However, the Secretary of State has chosen not to follow the Committee's recommendations in that respect. Will she tell the House why?
  Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. In fact, we took seriously the Committee's preference for the term "consumer" rather than "customer". We tried to amend references to "customer" to "consumer" throughout the Bill because that recognises the nature of the transactions that will form one element of consumerism that the measure will regulate. Later in my speech, I shall deal with the broader reference to Ofcom's competition powers.
  There is no hierarchy in Ofcom's responsibilities. The definition of general duties used in the Bill was developed in direct response to the Scrutiny Committee's view that those duties should be expressed coherently rather than in the way that they had been listed previously. My colleagues and I accepted that.
  To return to the point that I was making before I took that stream of interventions, it is fair to recognise that the BBC has been open to more scrutiny since the licence fee settlement in February 2000. The governors have introduced a package of reforms relating to transparency, fair trading and accountability. I have already welcomed the reforms announced by the chairman of the governors earlier this year. Much will be governed by amendments to the agreement between the BBC and the Secretary of State and we shall lay the relevant extract of the draft agreement before the Committee that will consider the Bill.
  Part 3 also covers the Government's approach to the carriage of public service broadcasters on cable and satellite. For satellite, the measure rolls forward the current system, which is policed by Oftel and is based on EC provisions that conditional access system providers must give public service broadcasters access to their systems on a basis that is fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. In addition, there will be a new fallback power for the Secretary of State to compel public service broadcasters to offer their services to platform providers.
  Mr. Chris Bryant: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Tessa Jowell: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Bryant: I had not expected such generosity from my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I meant that my right hon. Friend had already been extremely generous in taking interventions.
  My right hon. Friend has wisely included the backstop power to which she referred. Is she wholly confident that it will be sufficient unto the day and that it will ensure that vertical integration in the industry does not stymie competition and open access for all broadcasters?
  Tessa Jowell: Yes. We have given these issues very careful consideration and believe that the conclusion on the face of the Bill is right.

  793
  Finally, this part of the Bill also contains our much-discussed policy on media ownership. It removes the restriction that prevents foreign ownership of United Kingdom broadcasters, removes the rules on Channel Five ownership, in recognition of its currently small audience share and limited reach, and liberalises the rules on local and national radio ownership.
  It is important to understand that our proposals on media ownership are driven by three basic principles. The first is that British media need new sources of investment and the Government's job is to remove the unnecessary obstacles to that investment. The second is that it does not matter whether the investment is a dollar, a euro or a yen as long as the content of our media remains of high quality, and the policing of that content by Ofcom will ensure that we end up with the best of both worlds: their money and our standards. I do not accept that relaxation of the ownership rules will lead to dumping of poor quality foreign programmes on the public. Ofcom will not let it, and the public will not watch it.
  Thirdly, ownership rules must reflect the reality of a global marketplace. So we seek to remedy the situation where, for example, Vivendi Universal, a huge foreign company with significant United States-based operations, can, as a French company, buy anything that it wants, whereas similarly global firms like AOL/ Time Warner or Viacom are barred.
  The outcome of this approach should be better programming.
  Part 4 is concerned with TV licensing—
  Mr. Mullin rose—
  Tessa Jowell: I shall make progress.
  Part 4 consolidates the existing provisions, enabling them to keep pace with developments in receiver technology.
  Finally, part 5 gives Ofcom tough competition powers to act concurrently with the Office of Fair Trading. Ofcom will be able to use general competition powers, but we are also retaining, very importantly, sector-specific competition rules for broadcasting—a vital part of protecting markets that do not deliver key policy objectives purely by leaving them to competition alone. Ofcom will have flexibility to use sector-specific powers, but it will not use them where it would be more appropriate for it to use general competition powers.
  Part 5 also reforms the newspaper merger regime contained in the Fair Trading Act 1973, to bring it in line with the Enterprise Act 2002.
  In conclusion, the Bill is the product of almost unprecedented consultation and has been greatly improved by that. I therefore repeat my thanks to the industry, to the Joint Committee, to Lord Puttnam and to the many others in the House and beyond who have made this a productive consultation process.
  When we embarked on developing the legislation, we said that we wanted the most dynamic communications industry in the world. The Bill will make that possible. We said that we wanted the best TV and radio in the world. The Bill will safeguard that. We said that we had
  794
  to protect the consumer and ensure that the media that they consume are free and fair. The Bill will ensure that. We said that we knew the difference between deregulation and laissez-faire. The Bill proves that. We said that we had the highest aspirations for the British communications sector, and we said that we wanted it to flourish and improve. The Bill will deliver that; I commend it to the House.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: On behalf of the Opposition, I make it clear that we welcome and support the Bill, although, as the House would expect, we have reservations about some of its provisions, and in respect of some parts we shall press the Government to go further.
  The Bill is designed to achieve two main purposes. The first purpose—to create a single regulator for the communications and media industries—was a commitment in the last Conservative manifesto, so I am pleased that it will now come about, even if it is not a Conservative Government who are enacting it.
  The second purpose is to revise and liberalise the rules governing the ownership of the media. It is more than six years since we last considered this issue, during the proceedings on the Broadcasting Act 1996. As a member of the Standing Committee, I argued that the rules would still be drawn too tightly and that change was happening so quickly that the danger was that the law would become obsolete and over-restrictive almost before the ink was dry. I am pleased, therefore, that the rules are to be liberalised again, enabling us to move further towards the media being subject to the competition rules that apply in every other industry.
  Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Whittingdale: It is very early in my speech, but I give way.
  Michael Fabricant: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the principled stand that he took, which stopped him being on the Front Bench at the time. Is he convinced, however, that the Bill has the flexible architecture that will enable it to keep pace with technological advances over the next five or eight years?
  Mr. Whittingdale: We shall need to explore that important point in Committee, but the Bill is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. Whether it goes far enough is a genuine point of concern that we will have to consider.
  The new regulator, Ofcom, was extensively debated during its paving Bill in the last Session. Disappointment was expressed at the fact that so much of the debate concentrated on its role in respect of the regulation of broadcasting and so little focused on its telecommunications role. With more channels becoming available, the need for intervention and regulation of broadcasting steadily declines, but competition in telecommunications is less extensive and the need to open the market and to regulate it remains fairly strong. Ofcom will undoubtedly be an enormously powerful body, whose remit will extend across a huge

  795
  sector of our economy, so it must be subject to the necessary checks and balances. We think that, in some areas, those may need to be strengthened.
  John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reins must be loosened, if only to ensure that broadband is promoted throughout the country and that we move into the new technology more quickly and cheaply?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I strongly agree about the importance of broadband and I shall come to it after I have dealt with Ofcom's competition role, which is equally important.
  Concern has been expressed that Ofcom may not have the necessary resources and expertise to take over the function of competition regulation, which in some cases is now exercised by the OFT. That, I hope, is another issue that we shall consider.
  Some have suggested that in addition to a separate content and consumer board there should be an economic board, in recognition of the importance of the competition responsibilities that Ofcom will have. I understand that the Government have rejected that idea, on the grounds that the economic function will be fundamental to everything that Ofcom does: but there remains a concern that businesses, whether they be suppliers or users of communications services, will lack a guaranteed mechanism to ensure that their voice is properly heard.
  Mr. David Drew: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on one of the problems that have been brought to my attention? The growth of access radio is to be commended, but many small commercial stations rely entirely on advertising revenue. If access radio tries to tap into that source of funds, many stations may be driven out of business.
  Mr. Whittingdale: In principle I, like the Government. support the idea of access radio, but the hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate concern that has been expressed to me by one of my local Essex commercial stations, which is doing an extremely good job. It is entitled to be worried that competitors may be established and enjoy unfair advantages over it. That is another issue that we shall need to consider.
  The Bill includes a number of safeguards to ensure that Ofcom's regulation will indeed be light touch, but we believe that they need to be strengthened in some places. In particular, it needs to be made explicit that Ofcom must operate in line with the principles that have been set out by the Better Regulation Task Force. There may also be a case for establishing a mechanism by which the House can scrutinise the activities of Ofcom and go beyond the excellent job that I have no doubt the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport will do under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
  Mr. Redwood: Although I am sure that the Secretary of State is quite sincere when she says that she wants us to have the most successful media and telecommunications industry in the world, is my hon. Friend worried, as I am, that her right hon. Friend the
  796
  Chancellor of the Exchequer is busily demolishing the telecommunications industry with massive tax impositions, which have left it cruelly short of cash to finance the very expansion that Labour Members want? Is that not a great paradox? Do not we need to get the Chancellor out of the way if we are to have any hope of success?
  Mr. Whittingdale: It is undoubtedly a paradox and, sadly, not just telecommunications businesses are struggling under the enormous burden of increased taxation under this Government.
  Ofcom will take over the telecommunications responsibilities of Oftel, the first utility regulator to be established. It is disappointing that less progress has been made in achieving a competitive market in telecommunications than in some other markets, such as energy. Sometimes it has seemed as though Oftel has spent more time intervening in those parts of the market where strong competition already exists than in those where it does not. In particular, it is arguable that we now have an aggressively competitive market in mobile telephony with four, soon to become five, operators.
  Those operators already have significant debts following the 3G—third generation—auction and face the challenge of financing and installing the infrastructure necessary for them to make a return on their investment. The Better Regulation Task Force suggested that mobile telephony might now be sufficiently competitive that it can be regulated by competition law alone, yet Oftel has decided to extended price caps and continues to seek to regulate specific tariffs.
  John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way. I am very conscious of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak.
  Oftel has continued to regulate mobile telephony, but it has been less successful in creating a competitive market in fixed-line telecommunications, in which BT remains the dominant supplier. The most recent attempt to open up the market was supposed to involve local loop unbundling, but the difficulties encountered by companies seeking to negotiate with BT led a number to abandon the attempt altogether, and the number of local loops that have been unbundled remains pitifully small. I believe that, out of about 28 million local loops, well under 1,000 have been unbundled.
  A balance must be struck between promoting competition in the short term and encouraging investment in infrastructure development in the longer term. In all such debates, the vital importance of increasing access to broadband must be a priority, and Britain is lagging far behind in that respect. Although the number of households with broadband access has now passed 1 million, we are still way behind our competitors.
  BT's latest price cuts have undoubtedly encouraged demand, as has its huge advertising campaign, although it must be said that the campaign has merely rubbed salt into the wound of the third of the population who

  797
  cannot access ADSL—advanced digital subscriber line—or cable broadband services. In rural areas, less than 5 per cent. of people have access to those services.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments on rural areas. Many parts of Wales beyond the M4 do not have access to broadband services—indeed, many parts of Scotland and England do not enjoy access to broadband—so does he accept that, in that regard at least, we are very reliant on the BT network? It has been the only provider of services in rural areas. Surely it would be better to build on that network in co-operation with Ofcom, perhaps by putting a duty on Ofcom to ensure access to broadband services, rather than leaving that to the market, which is not delivering.
  Mr. Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it seems that BT is the only player in the game in terms of extending services. According to BT, people in rural areas may have to wait between 10 and 20 years before they are given access to such services, which is unacceptable. We will have to consider that issue because there is a real danger that this country will have a two-tier economy and that, once again, rural Britain will be disadvantaged. Ofcom will have to address that issue.
  Mr. Bryant: BT says that competition law prevents it from rolling out broadband services not just to rural areas but to many semi-rural areas and that it is unable to subsidise the roll-out to individual exchanges. Does the hon. Gentleman believe BT?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am tempted to say, "They would, wouldn't they?" I would want to look at rather more independent evidence than that provided by BT. Nevertheless, I accept that there may be a conflict between the short-term objective of promoting competition and the long-term objective of achieving investment in broadband services, and we will need to consider that issue.
  I suspect that the Bill's provisions on radio spectrum pricing will not receive as much attention as its other parts. We support the modernisation of spectrum management through the introduction of spectrum trading because it is likely to lead to more efficient allocation, but the proposed introduction of recognised spectrum access has raised concerns that it is in effect a tax on satellite services. Those who are affected argue that it is unfair, that it is unduly restrictive and that it may deter the switch to digital. We also wish to scrutinise those important issues, and I hope that we will have the results of the Trade and Industry Committee's inquiry on that issue before we do so.
  Let me now turn to the area about which I expect there to be most debate, not least because nothing interests the media more than themselves. In the past 10 years, the range and choice of media in this country have been transformed. The old argument that spectrum scarcity limits the number of outlets is no longer applicable, so the case for the Government taking an active role in controlling who owns and what appears on television and radio has become more and more
  798
  unsustainable. I therefore unreservedly welcome the measures to liberalise the rules that restrict the ownership and regulation of our media companies.
  There has already been extensive debate about the Government's decision to do away with the current prohibition on non-European companies acquiring British media companies. Although I would much prefer a similarly liberal regime to exist in countries such as America, that in itself is no reason for us to maintain a restrictive regime in this country. The suggestion that we have nothing to learn from America about television programming is no longer credible. Today, many of the most innovative and stimulating television programmes are American-made; nor can it be argued that the British commercial television sector is so well run that it must be protected from overseas management. I therefore congratulate the Government on their decision to stand firm and to resist the protectionists on Lord Puttnam's committee.
  Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend recall the considerable furore in the House when Central Television was acquired by Carlton? There was much concern that Central Television would not provide good local regional programmes and news coverage. Was he reassured by the fact that the licensing conditions ensured that good programming continued? Does that not demonstrate that, in fact, no matter who owns ITV or other commercial broadcasters in this country, licensing agreements will ensure that programme standards are maintained?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I am becoming slightly concerned about the number of times that I agree with the Secretary of State, but I think she said that there is a difference between the regulation of content and that of ownership. I think that that is the point that my hon. Friend is making, and I have to say that I agree with it.
  We also welcome the lifting of the restrictions that have prevented the creation of a consolidated ITV company. The merger of Granada and Carlton has to be considered by the Competition Commission, but in principle it may create a stronger company that is more capable of competing internationally in a multi-channel world. However, the Government still lack the courage of their convictions in other respects and are intending to maintain restrictions beyond those required under competition law.
  In particular, we believe that the continuation of ownership limits on ITN are unnecessary and may hold hack its development. Even though the limit on individual ownership will be raised to 40 per cent., the effect of a Granada-Carlton merger will leave the new company still unable to increase its stake and, unlike most television companies in other countries, unable to own its news provider.
  That is a retrograde step, because, under the old regime, it was at least theoretically possible for ITN to be wholly owned by the ITV companies. The Government claim that they are concerned to protect ITN's editorial independence. What ITN needs, however, is investment to be able to compete with Sky News and the BBC. Retaining a cap on ownership effectively prevents ITN from growing as a business and providing a strong third force in news provision.

  799
  The Government have also made welcome moves to relax the existing restrictions on the involvement of religious bodies or individuals in broadcasting. The lifting of the ban on religious bodies holding national digital sound programme service licences is long overdue. However, it is still intended that there should be a complete ban on religious organisations holding national analogue radio and television licences and multiplex licences. In addition, although the rules preventing a religious person from applying for a licence allow Ofcom to make a determination, it remains the case that those holding religious office in a local church or religious charity are discriminated against. Of course, there may be cases in which it is inappropriate for a religious body to be granted a licence or for an individual involved in a religious organisation to hold one. It is discriminatory and offensive to many involved in religious organisations, however, that they should still be singled out under the legislation and subjected to a more restrictive and arbitrary regime.
  In the case of cross-media ownership, the Government have decided to lift the restriction on a newspaper proprietor controlling more than 20 per cent. of the national newspaper market owning Channel Five. At the same time, however, they argue that to allow ownership of channel 3 would represent an unacceptable concentration of influence. When the last Broadcasting Bill was introduced in 1996, I argued that the 20 per cent. limit was arbitrary and unfair and that its effect was to punish a newspaper group for its success—[Interruption.]I am glad that Labour Members remember that; I remember it well, too. I am therefore slightly astonished by the Labour party's attitude today. In 1996, the Labour party's then spokesman, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who is now a Minister, said that
  "the Government have concocted a 20 per cent. rule for cross-media holdings. That is unnecessary and wrong."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D,21 May 1996; c. 412.]
  The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms)—I look forward to hearing him wind up this debate—was also a member of the Committee. He made an impassioned speech in favour of the amendment that I, along with other hon. Members, had tabled:
  "How can it be right that an organisation with a 19.5 per cent. market share can own a whole television station, whereas one with a 20.5 per cent. share can own only 20 per cent.?"—[Official Report, Standing Committee D,21 May 1996; c. 427.]
  I was delighted at the time that the amendment was supported by both hon. Gentlemen and their colleagues on the Labour Benches. The House will therefore understand my puzzlement that the Government now propose to retain the very limit that they voted against six years ago.
  Let me turn to the provisions affecting newspaper ownership. The Government have frequently trumpeted their belief in press freedom, which we would all echo. In the UK, statutory regulation of the publishing industry has always been viewed as unnecessary and dangerous, with any benefits being far outweighed by the loss of freedom that it might entail. The Government have on many occasions made clear their support for the current system of press self-regulation as administered by the Press Complaints Commission. Publishers are subject to no special legal regime above and beyond the
  800
  stringent general laws of defamation, obscenity, breach of confidence, copyright, court reporting and so on. That reflects the belief, as guaranteed by the Human Rights Act 1998, that freedom of expression and opinion are rights that must be strictly protected in a free and democratic society.
  A real concern exists, however, that the Bill, far from protecting press freedom, will do precisely the opposite. It may be the law of unintended consequences, or it may be something far more cynical. At the moment, the press is—for very good reason, of which we are all aware—not responsible to any of the statutory bodies that will make up Ofcom. Ofcom will be an amalgamation of state regulators that deal with electronic communications, and they have no knowledge or experience of the newspaper industry. Under the Bill, however, it is intended that Ofcom be given a say in "public interest matters" affecting newspapers as well as considerations of "plurality" in newspaper transfer issues.
  The Secretary of State already possesses exceptional powers in this area. Giving an additional responsibility to Ofcom is unnecessary and potentially dangerous. These are issues on which Ofcom lacks expertise, in which its role is already performed by the Office of Fair Trading and which may have the consequence of introducing statutory regulation of newspapers through the back door. Unforeseen consequence or not, that must not be allowed to occur. If the Government really value press freedom, the Bill must make that crystal clear. There can be no room for doubt, obfuscation or clarification by the courts. It is too important a matter to leave to chance.
  The Bill contains welcome measures to strengthen the requirements on broadcasters to ensure that their programmes are accessible to the deaf and the visually impaired. In some cases, we believe that more can be done, particularly in terms of publicising the availability of subtitling and promoting design that is easily used by disabled people and those with sight problems. We also look forward to amendments being tabled by the Government to strengthen the rights of independent producers. The ITC has produced a report on the programme supply market that has been widely welcomed by the industry. It is now for the Government to act on it.
  Finally, I come to the glaring omission in the Bill. The creation of a single independent regulator for our broadcast media is fatally flawed as long as the biggest and most powerful broadcaster is not fully within its remit. In recent months, the BBC has become steadily more commercial and has strayed further and further from its public service remit. Its commercial activities, undertaken by BBC Worldwide, now compete directly with private companies through television channels such as UK History, through its publications, and even through its provision of educational software. At the same time, through the licence fee, it competes with the commercial sector for film rights, and finances channels such as News 24 and BBC 3, which appear to be carbon copies of existing commercial stations. All complaints about the BBC's activities, however, must be made to and adjudicated by the BBC. It is indefensible that when

  801
  every other broadcaster is subject to independent scrutiny and regulation, the BBC should be exempt from it.
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whittingdale: No, I must finish.
  Bringing the BBC fully within the scope of Ofcom is supported by the whole commercial sector. It is supported by the BBC's former chairman, Lord Hussey, and by Lord Bragg. It is extraordinary that, on this point, the Government appear to be deaf to all reason, and, instead, have listened only to the seductive voice of the BBC.
  This is generally a good Bill, and we do not intend to oppose it. Even though it has already been subjected to much scrutiny, its size, scope and importance mean that it is essential that it should receive proper detailed consideration in Committee, which we intend to ensure.
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I begin by reminding the House of the interests that I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
  We have travelled a long road—almost two years to the day—since the White Paper was published that set this process in motion. Much has happened in terms of consultative processes, pre-legislative scrutiny and a draft Bill being published in advance. That process of consultation has been immensely valuable in producing this Bill. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the way in which they have approached the Bill, and I hope that that will act as a model for future detailed legislation of this kind.
  I also want to welcome the broad thrust of the Bill. It seeks to achieve three major things. First, it seeks to converge the regulators of broadcasting and telecommunications in a way that matches the convergence of the technologies governing the way in which we receive material as viewers, listeners and consumers. Secondly, it seeks to bring in a lighter touch of regulation generally. Out go the number crunching, the minute counting and the detailed specific regulation that act as a barrier to creativity in our broadcasting environment. In come sensible self-regulation and co-regulation that will give a certain degree of trust to our public service broadcasters but with reserve powers for the regulator to intervene if that is necessary. That is a sensible approach. Thirdly, throughout the Bill, there is the intention to safeguard the values of public service broadcasting and of high-quality broadcasting, which are essential if we are to have a good broadcasting environment into the future.
  The Bill seeks to get right the balance between the competition that will promote choice and the protection of public service and quality broadcasting for the viewer and the listener. I believe that it gets that balance broadly right.
  I also want to welcome two recent decisions by the Government. The first is the decision on local commercial radio ownership. It has made absolute sense to move from the draft Bill's three-plus-one formula to
  802
  the two-plus-one formula now before us. I welcome that primarily because it will allow greater investment in local programme making, local events and local news coverage in local radio stations around the country.
  Secondly, the Government's decision to embark on the programme supply review, which has now been published, is also extremely welcome. The recommendations of the review are remarkably radical. They present the possibility that the contractual relationship between independent producers and broadcasters could change much to the independent producers' benefit. That could ensure that the strong ecology of a mixture of independent and broadcaster-led material can benefit the viewing public into the future. I hope that the Government will introduce proposals during the debates on the Bill that will enable the recommendations of the supply review to be implemented.
  However, there are several issues where I hope that the Government can go a little further than they have in the Bill. The first of those issues was referred to by the Opposition spokesman when he completed his remarks. I refer to the relationship between Ofcom and the BBC. Although the Opposition spokesman was technically wrong in what he said about the handling of complaints by the BBC and Ofcom, he had a fundamental point. The regulations of tiers 1 and 2 in relation to the BBC will be very much in the hands and under the purview of Ofcom, but the regulatory backstop powers, which Ofcom has for all the other public service broadcasters under tier 3, will remain in the hands of the BBC's board of governors.
  The Government will probably argue—indeed, they have argued—that the Secretary of State has reserve powers in relation to the BBC. For example, if the board of governors goes completely off the regulatory rails and fails to fulfil the public service remit that Parliament has placed on the BBC, the Secretary of State can always step in and can, ultimately, sack the board of governors. However, that is a nuclear-button option that would never be exercised. I therefore suggest that it would not only be in the interests of fairness between the different public service broadcasters, but in the interests of the BBC to place a backstop power in the hands of Ofcom to intervene if the governors fail in their broad duty to fulfil the remit. By all means, let us leave the governors in charge of their day-to-day responsibility to fulfil the remit and to manage the BBC as an organisation, and let us give the BBC the self-regulatory powers that the Bill gives to all other public service broadcasters in tier 3, but let us reserve a power for the independent regulator, Ofcom—rather than the Secretary of State—to intervene.
  The overall review of broadcasting is flagged up in clause 256. It contains the provision for the once-in-every-five-years exercise that Ofcom will undertake to consider the whole public service broadcasting landscape and the trends, difficulties and balances between the different public service broadcasters that emerge. The review is one of the most important things that Ofcom will do. The original Bill said that the review should take place every three years, but this Bill says that it is up to Ofcom to decide when to carry it out but that it should take place at least once every five years. Whether it is three years or five years, the interval

  803
  between the reviews that Ofcom will undertake is too long. I hope that the Committee will examine that point in greater detail as the Bill receives further scrutiny.
  The developing problem of piracy of moving image material is extremely worrying. Piracy and counterfeiting are already crucifying the music industry. They pose a danger to television and film in almost equal measure. Ofcom cannot have a power to intervene directly to prevent piracy, but it can have the duty to bring together all parts of the industry to agree common standards that will provide the best possible barrier against piracy in future. I hope that that point will also be considered as the Bill goes through its proceedings in the House.
  As those debates take place, I hope that the Government will take some of these points on board. My right hon. and hon. Friends deserve the thanks of the House for introducing the Bill in the way and in the condition that they have. It will not take very much for them to make it even better.
  6.27 pm
  Nick Harvey: We also welcome the Bill and will support its Second Reading. We very much hope that it will form the basis for the regulation of a new generation of communication technologies. Therefore, it is vital that we get the regulations absolutely right.
  I applaud the Government for their attitude towards the consultation that they have allowed on the Bill. I served on the scrutiny Committee, and that process was entered into by Members of both Houses and from all political parties with a positive mindset. The Committee was deftly chaired by Lord Puttnam. The Government's acceptance of many of the Committee's suggestions has been helpful. We approach the Bill's passage through Parliament with a number of the major issues resolved between the parties.Of course, I wish that the Government had gone further towards meeting one or two of the Committee's other recommendations, and I will refer to them.
  The underlying principle should be to retain a serious broadcasting and production industry in the UK and to create the conditions by which creativity and freedom of expression can flourish. We must therefore guarantee plurality, with a range of providers in the public service and the private commercial sector. The choice is not simply between public service broadcasters and other channels.
  We must also guarantee access. The new regime will have to ensure that not only is there a choice between providers but that consumers have the ability to access all the services and make a choice between them. That means making sure that consumers are not left behind by technological advances.
  We need to guarantee diversity in broadcasting and telecommunications. To achieve that, all consumers must be able to exercise choice. We also have to maintain quality and standards in broadcasting and all material produced.
  Mr. David Heath: My hon. Friend talks of maintaining production capacity and standards. That is most under threat in children's broadcasting. The production of quality children's
  804
  drama is increasingly under attack by commercial forces, such as cartoons that are produced in the far east. Is there anything in the Bill to reverse that process?
  Nick Harvey: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I intend to deal with material from abroad. I welcome the new BBC services in that sector and hope that they will provide a counterbalance to those forces.
  It is important that Ofcom have a strong requirement to consider the interests of citizens and not only the consumer of services. We need sector-specific regulations on top of general competition regulations because the communication sector is special and unique. Broadcasting in particular is not just a commodity to be traded like any other. Although such regulation is implicit in the Bill, we need to be more explicit to ensure that we promote and protect the interests of citizens. Much of that work should take place in the content board.
  Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that no creators are on the content board of Ofcom is an omission? Does he think that the board would be enhanced by having someone who is involved in the creative side of the industry at the heart of the decision-making process?
  Nick Harvey: It is important that the content board have a wide membership that brings together as much expertise as possible. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point.
  The principal duty of Ofcom should be to further the interests of consumers and citizens. We support the creation of Ofcom offices in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and agree that the accounts of the activity of each office should be published. We would also welcome regional and national councils advising the content board. Ofcom would also be well advised to have an advisory panel of business interests to give it an idea of the likely impact of its decisions.
  We must recognise the unique role of Britain's public service broadcasters and the significance of those broadcasters to our evolving broadcasting ecology. We are happy that the Bill creates the possibility of a merger between Carlton and Granada. There was a time when that would not have been welcome, but in a fast-changing world market it is important that we have a strong ITV that is able to compete. There is no sense in maintaining artificial competition now that they are both up against such strong competitors both in the United Kingdom and, more particularly, from abroad.
  I agree with what the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said about ITN. It makes little sense to sustain the restrictions on ITN ownership. I would go one stage further and make ITV take full responsibility for ITN if they merge to ensure that it is driven to be a serious competitor for BBC news and Sky news. I fear that the current arrangements are beginning to undermine ITN and will continue to do so.
  I also agree with what the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said about the review period. It was originally meant to be every three years and the scrutiny Committee suggested that it should be every two years. I am rather despondent that

  805
  the Bill sets out that it should be at least once every five years. It needs to be more frequent than that if it is to make a meaningful contribution.
  Mr. Bercow: If there are alleged breaches by the BBC of its duty to observe due impartiality and the board of governors refuses to act, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that there should be a back-stop power in such circumstances for Ofcom to exercise? If so, does he agree that a level of public opinion or protest could be a suitable catalyst for the exercise of such a power?
  Nick Harvey: I agree that there should be a back-stop power, but it would be more appropriate, at least for now, for that power to reside with the Secretary of State and not with Ofcom. As Ofcom is a predominantly economic regulator and secondarily a content regulator, it has not evolved or matured enough for it to have ultimate responsibility for the BBC, which is what the Conservatives propose. The Government have got the balance just about right. We will soon have a detailed debate on the future of the BBC when we come to charter renewal. By that stage, Ofcom will be up and running and will have had a chance to prove itself. Then and only then should we debate what the hon. Gentleman's colleagues propose.
  The scrutiny Committee had little time to absorb the 35 pages of clauses produced in the early summer on "must offer" and "must carry". The omission of those from the Bill has put some public service broadcasters into a bit of a spin. I do not advocate that the 35 pages should be reinstated, but we have not heard enough from the Government on why they came and then so swiftly went. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why they have been swept aside and why the Government are so confident that the fairly minimalist provisions now in the Bill will suffice. Irrespective of what form the Bill takes when it completes its parliamentary passage, we need to be sure that viewers across all platforms have access to all public service broadcasters. How that is achieved, from the consumers point of view at least, is a subsidiary issue. We do not want to lose sight of that.
  If Ofcom is ultimately to arbitrate and referee negotiations between platform providers and public service broadcasters on terms that are fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, we have to send either both parties into those negotiations with a pistol to their heads, or neither. We cannot have an imbalance. If there is to be a "must offer", logic dictates that there needs to be a "must carry", and vice versa. Both sides need to be locked in. Ofcom must have back-stop powers come what may to ensure that agreement is reached. We must consider those issues in Committee. I accept that the European directive as implemented in delegated legislation has the makings of a "must carry" provision, but we might want to probe that in more detail.
  I, too, welcome the ITC's review of the programme supply market and congratulate the Secretary of State on asking it to set that up so promptly after the scrutiny Committee suggested it in its report. A vibrant and successful independent programme-making sector is important to the future of British broadcasting. Original
  806
  UK production is part of the vitality of our broadcasting industry. It is especially important in the regions. A high proportion of independent production and a fair distribution of intellectual property rights need to be facilitated if independent production is to survive and thrive, as I am sure we all hope it will.
  I welcome the provisions for access radio. Some of the experiments in access radio are proving successful and could nurture a great deal of radio talent for the future. It is important that, as we proceed, adequate spectrum is made available for access radio, and some of that may, for example, come from BBC sub-bands.
  We have heard the suggestions for radio ownership rules. It is important that the regulator is able to determine a meaningful requirement of localness, which has not always been implemented with great vigour in the past. The Bill will need to be particularly tight in that area if we are to protect local radio and its listeners, so I welcome Ofcom's duty to impose localness conditions.

  As for the revolution in media ownership—that is what this is—that the Government are heralding, that was not part of the White Paper. It emerged in the early summer before the scrutiny Committee started its work and only as we reached the draft Bill stage. Nothing that is suggested is implacably wicked or wrong in principle, but we already have two new Acts, the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002, and we are now introducing this Bill, which we presume will be enacted next year. There will also be a complete upheaval in the apparatus of regulation, as five bodies make way and a new one is set up.
  I should have thought that with three Acts needing to bed down, to prove themselves and to be probed, and a new regulator that may take time to work properly and to prove its worth, the Government are taking an enormous gamble by launching into complete upheaval of our ownership rules. To my mind, it would have made sense to allow the legislation to prove itself, and to allow Ofcom to prove itself, and then during a periodic review of the market to return to the question of ownership rules. However, the Government seem confident that it will work. The Secretary of State said in her speech that Ofcom will not permit some of the practices about which people have expressed worry, and I can only hope that her confidence will prove to be well founded.
  Mr. Mullin: On the question of wickedness, is it the hon. Gentleman's understanding that removing the cross-media ownership rules from Channel Five would enable a newspaper proprietor who already owns, say, four national newspapers and one television channel to purchase Channel Five and use it to subvert ITV and Channel 4, in the same way as he subverted much of the rest of Fleet street? That would be fairly wicked, would it not?
  Nick Harvey: It certainly would, and I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point. It has to be said that the broadcasting sector is regulated a great deal more tightly than the newspaper sector, but the hon. Gentleman certainly raises an interesting point, and it will cause hon. Members to stop and think.
  Mr. Mullin: I am relatively new to this conversation, but I would like to know whether the hon. Gentleman's understanding of the decision to remove the cross-media ownership rules from Channel Five is the same as mine.
  Nick Harvey: Yes, it is, but the hon. Gentleman may want to think about some of the general competition rules that might apply. Although the Bill makes sector-specific points, he may be reassured by the fact that general competition rules might prevent that degree of cross-media ownership. Who knows, however? We are stepping into new realms. I should have thought that if the proprietor that the hon. Gentleman may have in mind were to get control of Channel Five, which I believe is being opened up because it has very low viewing figures, those figures might quickly increase, and the market might look very different shortly thereafter.
  On radio ownership rules, I note that the Government have moved from three plus one to two plus one. I welcome the definition of a "well developed commercial radio market", but as I said, it is important that localness can be ensured and that Ofcom sets about that serious task.
  I agreed with the general thrust of the comments made by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford about religious ownership. The Government's proposals are pragmatic and sensible, but they leave in primary legislation the prohibition on religious ownership, which seems peculiar. I believe that the position will be challenged and that the Government will have to revisit the matter. I do not understand why religious organisations should be banned from even applying for a licence, although I can well see that when it comes to allocating licences, there may be strong arguments.
  Mr. Bryant: In that case, would the hon. Gentleman also remove the restriction on political parties having broadcasting licences?
  Nick Harvey: There is a big difference between the two, and more people would see the sense in the political ban than would see the sense in the religious ban. However, as the Secretary of State implied, the days of the political ban may be numbered.
  On telecommunications, which is clearly an important part of the Bill, we are now in a period of rapid technological progress, which is to be welcomed. Nevertheless, the role of the regulator in that market will be vital. It is important that Ofcom use the various tools that the Bill puts at its disposal, such as the provisions on significant market power and on privileged suppliers. We welcome also the universal service conditions, and we hope that they will be used progressively to ratchet up the requirement on telecoms providers to make sure that broadband becomes increasingly available in rural areas. It will be a serious blow to constituencies such as mine and those of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends if there is two-track progress on that and rural areas are left out. It is important that that not be allowed to happen and that Ofcom use the powers at its disposal.
  The Government should consider whether there should be more scope for self-regulation in advertising. I welcome the provision of the consumer panel but I
  808
  regret that it will not be more independent. The Government were wrong to turn down the idea of the Secretary of State appointing the panel. It will not work as well as it could if it is a creature of the regulator.
  There are various issues concerning disabled consumers of communications, who are not given the priority in the Bill that they should receive. It is interesting that although the Government have included provisions, they are only modest: for example, the requirement for 10 per cent. of audio description in any given week. Would not it make sense to give Ofcom a power, or indeed to impose on it a duty, to increase some of those proportions over time? That would not have to be done at an unrealistic speed. Simply to include requirements in the Bill and then wait for years until another Bill is introduced seems to indicate a rather relaxed attitude.

  In conclusion, we welcome the Bill, and we hope that some of the problems can be ironed out in Committee. The Bill undoubtedly provides a framework that could be effective in regulating these crucial industries for many years to come.
  6.49 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: Like everyone who has spoken so far, I welcome the Bill. It must be the first Bill to receive so much scrutiny before hitting the Floor of the House, and I suspect, and hope, that it will be a model for future legislation.
  There is certainly a logic in creating one regulatory authority. The media are constantly and quickly changing, and we have different means of conveying news, gathering information and providing entertainment.
  That is a far cry from the original vision of Lord Reith when the BBC was created. In fact, he would not recognise broadcasting provision today. In an ever-changing world with overlapping media and a convergence of different types of media, it is sensible that a light-touch regulatory authority should look at the principles of regulation, rather than the detail. Inevitably, anything that we discuss in the House today and over the coming weeks in Committee may be out of date by the time it receives Royal Assent.
  I was pleased that the Secretary of State reaffirmed in her opening speech that public service broadcasting would be given a new lease of life by the Bill, as I support it strongly. Because we have a tradition of such broadcasting in the UK, we have a high standard of broadcasting which is the envy of the world. When we talk about public service broadcasting, everyone assumes that we are talking about the BBC but of course we are not—we are talking about the ITV channels, Channel 4 and Channel Five. I now have access to a range of channels through satellite—I finally gave in and got it last summer—but it is to terrestrial channels that I turn for most of my viewing, simply because most of the others offer repeats of stuff that I have already seen. Most innovative, exciting and new work is produced by the public service broadcasters.
  In my own area of Aberdeen, the regional identity that is an important component of public service broadcasting is delivered not by the BBC, but by Grampian TV and Northsound Radio.
  Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Lady share my disappointment that there is no representative from

  809
  Scotland on the Ofcom board, although we previously had a place on the Independent Television Commission? Does she not think that our strong regional identity in Scotland may be lost because we do not have that position any more?
  Miss Begg: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman lives, but to have a place specifically for someone from Scotland on a board of nine would be overgenerous. The Scots get everywhere. I cannot believe that nine board members serving a national body there will not include at least one Scot. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is an exception, because she has a place in Cabinet, but the hon. Gentleman's proposal is equivalent to saying that we want a special seat for a Scot. If anything, the problem is usually the reverse—people from the English regions are always complaining that they do not get a say in anything because the dominant voices are from Scotland—[Interruption.] Indeed, and Wales as well. There will be nine people on the board, and I hope that they will include Scots who can reflect Scotland's views.
  As I was saying, it is important that the content rules of public service broadcasting include the promotion and protection of local and regional content. In my own area of Aberdeen, that regional identity is catered for most capably by Grampian TV and Northsound radio. However, I am concerned that there may be a loss of that regional identity. While I accept that it may be desirable for Granada and Carlton TV to merge, and understand the wish for a strong ITV and perhaps a single ITV channel competing with the BBC, I am concerned that Grampian's specific regional identity may be lost. It is important that the content rules deal with that—it is not just about a pan-Scottish identity but about narrower identities within Scotland.
  Sir Robert Smith: Is that not a classic example of the Secretary of State having to examine her reassurance that it is not ownership but regulation that matters? In the Scottish Media Group's takeover of Grampian, the ITC had to work hard to apply the spirit as well as the letter of the regulations.
  Miss Begg: Indeed, it did so successfully. Now that the Scottish Media Group has put The Herald up for sale, there are concerns that it and The Scotsman will be owned by the same people. There are therefore anxieties about the possible narrowing of media ownership, as well as worries about the opening of media ownership to people from non-European Community countries. In Scotland, the worry is not that more people will own more media outlets but that those outlets will be in the hands of fewer people. The Bill's proposed liberalisation, which would allow foreign ownership of media outlets, may, notwithstanding the concerns that many of us have about some individuals involved, result in a broader range of media owners in Scotland.
  The Bill deals not just with television but with radio. I have given Grampian and Northsound a few plugs today—I commend both of them on their good sense in deciding to locate new headquarters in my constituency. Very often, local commercial radio stations cater for
  810
  local identity. They have a good community spirit and are active in the community. While the UK overall may be frightened that too much output comes from London, people in the north and Scotland are frightened that too much comes from the central belt, so it is important that we make provision for regional differences.
  Time is moving on, so I shall make one more point on the "must carry, must offer" controversy. I shall not go into what money should change hands if that provision comes into force, but it is crucial that both "must offer" and "must carry" are included in the Bill. When the analogue signal is switched off, the only platform from which some people, particularly in rural areas, will be able to receive a signal is satellite. It is unlikely that everyone in this country will be able to receive a digital signal from the usual transmitter system, so they will have no choice but to access digital television through satellite platforms. If that is the case, it is incumbent on the satellite platforms to ensure that they carry all the public service broadcasting channels. People currently have choice in certain areas but, crucially, that may not be so in future. I therefore hope that the Government will ensure that there are backstop powers in the Bill.
  The Bill is important, as I have said. It has had a lengthy gestation, and hope that all the discussion that preceded today's debate will result in a better Bill rather than, as one wag said to me last night, a longer Bill made even longer. I commend it to the House.
  6.58 pm
  Michael Fabricant: In one sense, I had hoped that the Bill would be slightly longer, as it would have been nice if it had been a consolidated Bill. It is a hit like the Maastricht treaty—you read the ruddy Bill but cannot understand it because it keeps referring to earlier legislation, in this case, the Broadcasting Act 1996.
  Mr. Bryant: Is "ruddy" a parliamentary word?
  Michael Fabricant: I will not drawn by the hon. Gentleman towards the Maastricht treaty, or I might be very much out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill, which is an important measure that has been, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) said, a long time coming. It reflects the change in technology. There is convergence not only in technology but in the law.
  I do not agree with all the hon. Members who spoke about religion. I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant). I am personally uncomfortable about the idea that broadcasters who represent specific religions might have access nationally to analogue radio. However. I believe that there will be national coverage on digital radio; the Secretary of State did not make that clear.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and, apparently, like the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the former Secretary of State, who has taken the road not to Damascus but to Islington, South and Finsbury, I believe that there is a huge anomaly in the treatment of the BBC. That is

  811
  different from what the Secretary of State said earlier and from what the right hon. Gentleman said when he was Secretary of State.
  In an intervention, I said that when the BBC does not uphold a complaint against it about programme content, even if the corporation is right, justice must be seen to be done. It is not right for the BBC, or anyone, to act as their own judge and jury, yet the BBC is acting in precisely that way. However, I welcome the fact that the BBC will be covered by tiers 1 and 2. Tier 3 is the control on public service broadcasters, which include not only the BBC but channel 3, Channel Five and Channel 4. It translates into greater transparency, but ultimately the governors of the BBC will act as judge and jury on their performance. That must he wrong.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I suspect that it will be debated at length in Committee. Nevertheless, does he accept that the BBC has a backstop: the House of Commons, to which the BBC is accountable? Is he genuinely suggesting that a regulator is necessarily better for democratic accountability than hon. Members and Ministers?
  Michael Fabricant: Yes, on a day-to-day basis. As the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, an intervention by the Secretary of State to sack the board of governors would be the nuclear option. The BBC is ultimately responsible to Parliament because it has a royal charter whose contents are determined by Parliament. However, 1 emphasise that intervention by Parliament is the nuclear option. Ofcom, not the board of governors, should have day-to-day control
  Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Michael Fabricant: One last time.
  Mr. Bryant: Is it not important that, in law, the Secretary of State cannot sack the governors? Secretaries of State in every other country in Europe can sack the governors of public service broadcasters. Here, they are appointed by the Queen in Council, and it is important to maintain the BBC's independence by ensuring that its governors cannot be removed by politicians.
  Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I simply echoed the point of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Michael Fabricant: I shall break my own rule and give way.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) should be that the Queen acts on the advice of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister.
  Michael Fabricant: I am eternally grateful, but now I shall move on or I shall run out of time. I emphasise that
  812
  the BBC is its own judge and jury, and that is wrong. I suspect that, more often than not, the BBC makes the right decisions about complaints against it.
  Again on the BBC, a frequency imperialism pertains. That point was made time and again in the 1980s, when I worked in the broadcasting industry. Nowadays, the Radio Authority makes it clear that access radio, which the Bill and the Secretary of State encourage, is impeded by the BBC, which continues to sit on frequencies that prevent access radio from using the FM hand. I hope that Ministers will deal with that problem when we consider the Bill in more detail in Committee. If I am chosen to serve on the Committee, I shall table amendments to ensure that there is an option to move the BBC from time to time when it squats on frequencies and prevents access to independent broadcasters. The independent production sector is acknowledged as being important to the United Kingdom, and generates not only pounds through payments from sales to television broadcasters in the United Kingdom, but dollars and perhaps even euros from the sale of programmes overseas.
  There should be quotas for radio as well as television. The BBC, especially Jenny Abramsky, has resisted that, but I do not understand the reason. The BBC has an internal quota of 10 per cent. and currently runs about 13 per cent. of analogue radio channels. I therefore believe that 10 per cent. is a reasonable quota. If the Government claim that a quota is too rigid, why does that argument not apply to television? There should be comparability. If television will have a quota, there should be a quota for radio too. It should be achievable, and I acknowledge that there is more live broadcasting on radio than on television. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) that I am capable of keeping order and I do not need his assistance.
  Michael Fabricant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Radio needs a quota that is different from the one for television because of radio's higher live broadcasting content.

  Let us consider the technical aspects of the Bill and the telecommunications perspective. Several hon. Members rightly said that that should not be ignored. When I served on the Committee that considered the Office of Communications Act 2002, several hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White), often the made the point that we concentrate too much on television and radio and not often enough on broadband.
  Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Rhondda, whom I like to plug because he serves on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, said that not only rural but also urban areas suffer from lack of access to broadband. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford also made the same point. I put in a plea for Burntwood in my constituency. It has a larger population than Lichfield but no access to asymmetric digital subscriber line—ADSL.
  The Bill is also gold-plating some European Union directives. A rather depressing example is its provision for a directive to control apparatus that BT and other telephone operators use. The reason for that is often

  813
  given as the position in Kingston-upon-Hull, where telephones are hard-wired in. However, that represents a small proportion of telephone systems in the United Kingdom. We all know that the majority of telephones in this country are plug-in. They can be bought from Dixons, Comet or the John Lewis Partnership, which I am always keen to promote. There is therefore no problem with competition. There is no reason at all to have provisions in the Bill to protect the consumer against BT or anyone else who controls this sort of equipment.
  I want to draw to the House's attention the concerns expressed by Channel 4, which has raised an important point. Although it welcomes the fact that ownership of television may change—we are almost certain to see consolidation in independent television, because of the huge losses of advertising revenue; they are down by 13 per cent. on last year—Channel 4 and other broadcasters are concerned that such consolidation would give a particularly powerful position to channel 3, if TV sales came under the control of one organisation, in terms of controlling the advertising market. That would be to the detriment of Channel 4, Channel Five and other broadcasters. Channel 4 has made it clear that it does not oppose the ownership changes, but it believes that Ofcom should have the necessary powers and expertise to maintain an open and competitive advertising sales market. That is absolutely right.
  With those caveats, I welcome the Bill. It represents a move towards the future, and its architecture is sufficiently open for the Bill to be flexible enough to encompass further technological changes when they occur. It is important, however, that the Bill should be scrutinised properly in Committee.
  7.11 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I should like to add my voice to the chorus of approval for both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department of Trade and Industry with regard to the way in which they have conducted themselves in bringing the Bill to the Floor of the House.
  I commend to the House a speech that I heard at the Edinburgh television festival in 1994—in fact, it was the McTaggart lecture—by a young man called Gregory Dyke. In it, he said that the BBC should be free of all political interference. That is probably why I am one of those on the Government side of the House who support the idea that the BBC should be completely regulated by Ofcom. We persuaded the Secretary of State for Health that we should be allowed a free vote on aspects of the Adoption and Children Bill last Session, and I wonder whether it would be possible to have a free vote on whether the BBC should be so regulated. It would then be the House's decision. There is a feeling abroad that the BBC will ultimately come into Ofcom, but it will do so only when it has its charter renewal and an improved licence fee. Those two elements really should be inside Ofcom's remit, not outside it.
  One or two hon. Members have mentioned ITN. The hon. Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey)
  814
  made the very good point that ITN is quite fragile. I believe that it needs some care and attention, and it needs it now, not tomorrow. Will the Secretary of State convene a meeting—similar to the meetings relating to the merger of Granada and Carlton—with the ITN board to see whether there is a better way of dealing with ITN, rather than having to wait?
  I am a big fan of community radio and television, and I am nervous that it is not clear who is to fund the proposals for the extension of those services. I would like to see powers in the Bill to provide for perhaps 1 per cent. of the licence fee being allocated to community television and radio. After all, if they are not a public service, I do not know what is. If that proposal is unacceptable, perhaps 1 to 5 per cent. of the licence fee could be given over five years, so that we could build up a reservoir of money for community radio and television people to bid for.
  This is quite a complicated issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said that he was worried about commercial radio losing out to those services in terms of advertising, but we could keep them in trust so that they did not have to advertise. That would be a way of funding something at the edge of radio and television—and, indeed, broadband. I commend that proposal to the Minister and look forward to his response.
  I disagree with my noble Friend Lord Puttnam about overseas investment. I welcome such investment, but two provisions ought to come with it. First, Ofcom should regulate for a higher percentage of local programming. If, for example, Disney were to buy Channel Five, or Murdoch wanted to make inroads into Granada, we could then insist, under the Ofcom regulations, that 80 per cent. of all production took place in this country. I like the way in which the French look after their media, and we must do the same.
  I would also like to see a much higher independent production figure. The figure of 25 per cent. was set in 1981. It was supposed to be a floor, but we treated it as a ceiling. That figure of 25 per cent. is the only reason why the independent production market cannot develop and grow bigger. I would like to see a floor of 40 per cent. built in over five years, as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) suggested for radio—an idea that I also support. It should not involve 10 per cent. now and 10 per cent. tomorrow, however, but 25 per cent. over five years. I would like to see a burgeoning of radio production.
  In the creative businesses that I know so well, creativity always lies in smallness, not in largeness. That is where our people's brilliance is.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that production quota of 25 per cent. is often confined to the London area, and not scattered across the nation as a whole? Does he also accept that it is important to start spreading it?
  Mr. Wyatt: I well remember the regional director of the BBC getting on the train at Euston, finishing up in Manchester for the week, and coming back on Friday. I agree entirely that there should be some regional perspective in the production quota, too.
  Something that has struck a raw nerve with me is a matter over which Ofcom has reserved powers in relation to the public interest, which I would like to see

  815
  toughened. The provisions are too prescriptive at the moment, and I would like to see a law protecting minors from spamming. For hon. Members who are not sure what spamming is, I shall explain. Last year 8 per cent. of all e-mails contained pornography or child pornography. This year that number has increased to 38 per cent., and it is rising daily. That is totally unacceptable, and the Ofcom rules on it are too weak. We are not addressing the issue, and I want to see a much tougher power for Ofcom included in the Bill. We must tell the internet service providers that they must either accept a charter given to them by Ofcom, or be charged a licence fee. They would choose a charter pretty quickly. If they were not prepared to, Ofcom should be allowed to require the installation of screening software to ensure that all ISPs screen for pornography, especially child pornography, which is appalling and disgusting.
  Hon. Members have mentioned broadband. The sad thing is that we have lost that thing called universality. We had it for television; we built the transmitters. We had it for electricity; we built the national grid. We need to charge Ofcom with introducing regulations to find the funding for rural communities—the 35 per cent. who do not have and never will get broadband. That funding may have to come from part of the licence fee or from a levy on advertising, but there must be a way of coming up with an intelligent solution so that the rural and semi-rural communities are not downgraded. That is something that Ofcom must do.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely important points. May I take him back to his point about pornographic spam—if that is what we should call it? We agree that it is undesirable, but how does he intend it to be regulated?
  Mr. Wyatt: I am not an advertising man, but there are several outstanding pieces of software on the market that I could name. I have seen them working, and they are between 95 and 98 per cent. successful. We will never be able to screen out such spam completely, but we should insist that screening software be installed. Furthermore, we can test that software, so there is a solution to this problem.
  I shall return to my starting point—the BBC. It is currently streaming video on a channel, and I would love to know whether it has permission to do so. Is it a television channel, a broadcast channel or a broadband channel? I think that it is a broadcast channel, and that it does not have permission. Who regulates that channel? I would like that question cleared up. This is one of the fundamental reasons why we must put the BBC inside Ofcom. I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: Like everyone else in the House, I welcome the Bill, which was brought about by a number of pressures, including the need to comply with European directives. Although there is some gold plating, I am still in favour of the Bill and what it brings before us tonight.
  I have served in the House for a number of years, and I have been a member of Committees that scrutinised Bills that created "Ofthis", "Ofthat" and "Of-the-
  816
  other"—I have not regretted scrutinising any of those Bills, particularly the one on "Of-the other". The particular matters that came before us encountered resistance from the Labour party, but as time has gone on, all those bodies have been welcomed and have come to be regarded as good things. They have gone from strength to strength.
  Greater scrutiny of such Bills would have been valuable on occasion, however, and the Government have a poor record of timetabling legislation without allowing adequate time for proper examination. I have in mind the Enterprise Act 2002; not only clauses but rafts of clauses went undebated because of the timetable motion, yet still became law. We must hope that they work properly.
  John Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the pre-legislative scrutiny will make the Bill successful? As it has already been considered, it will also be easier to amend in Committee.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman not only gives me another minute or two, but brings me to my next point. I commend the pre-legislative scrutiny, which has been immensely valuable, and the Government are to be congratulated on introducing the process—not only for this Bill but, I sincerely hope, for others. If the pre-legislative scrutiny had not taken place, I shudder to think how many clauses of this 543-page Bill would have gone undebated.
  Even so, the Bill could be further improved by spending more time in Committee, so the programme motion disappoints me. Again, there is insufficient time for us to do the legislation justice, so if my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), who is leading for the Opposition, wishes to object on that point he will find me in the Lobby beside him, supporting more time for scrutinising the Bill. Indeed, as we have broad and general agreement, I hope that Ministers will not be too upset, and officials will not feel that their virility has been tested, if they agree to the odd amendment to improve the Bill.
  Integrating the work of the Broadcasting Standards Commission, the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to achieve a coherent, common and consistent policy on licensing broadcasters, maintaining standards and considering complaints is a desirable objective. Making it all work smoothly and seamlessly is a major undertaking in itself. Of course there will be difficulties over the details of the role and procedures that Ofcom will adopt, the extent of its powers to regulate, access to services, and the composition of the authority. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) will be very interested in its membership.
  Despite all the support for Ofcom, it is nevertheless important to say at this point that fundamental issues are at stake. I am not sure how the Bill will clarify the position of the BBC. Obviously, many Members in the House are not clear about that either. Even the previous Secretary of State has seen the light, and I hope that Ministers can bring themselves to support the idea of Ofcom covering the BBC.
  Under clause 3, Ofcom has a general duty
  "to further the interests of consumers in relevant markets, where appropriate by promoting competition".

  817
  By almost any definition, there are sections of the television and broadcasting market in which the BBC has a strong, entrenched position, but, as the satellite and broadcasting groups rightly point out, the BBC will fall outside Ofcom's remit. Independent companies operating in the terrestrial cable and satellite market as well as the radio sector will be subject to the full impact of regulation, but the dominant player will lie beyond Ofcom's reach.
  I made a careful note of the Secretary of State's opening remarks. She said that there was to be full rigour of competition law, covering, as it will, the BBC. Fine, but what does that mean? Will the penalties imposed by Ofcom and the Office of Fair Trading be the same? Will the speed of implementation be the same for both? Will the legal defences available to businesses against both bodies be the same? Will a judgment by one body on significant market power be accepted by the other? What will be done to prevent a business from facing two rulings, which may be conflicting, from two bodies?
  If the Minister's answer to those questions is, "It will all be seamless and it will all be the same," I shall argue, "Why shouldn't the BBC come under the control of Ofcom?" I support the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), because there should be a free vote on the issue. It should not be a matter for party discipline and Whips. This is a moral issue, just like foxhunting or something like that. That may seem a bridge too far, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there we are.
  May I flag up another concern? Members on both sides of the House are fully aware of the importance of broadband services, and our foreign competitors are aware of it as well. Deutsche Telecom, with German federal Government support, has 90 per cent. of that country covered, France has invested the equivalent of $25 per head and Japan a massive $90. We are on $5. According to BT, coverage is some 66 per cent., but it will be another five years before 90 per cent. of our population have access to broadband services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield plugged a place in his constituency, so I shall plug one in mine. The town of Chorleywood is full of keen internet and broadband users, but they are still waiting for connections so that they can start to use the service. Some rural areas will never have—
  Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I shall not, because I have given way already, and the time limit is such that I shall be cut off in my prime if I do.
  Some rural areas will not have cover because current legislation and the Bill prevent cross-subsidy. Sooner or later, one of two situations will arise: either the Government will have to put their hand in the taxpayer's pocket to fund non-commercial areas, or such areas as Cornwall will have to remain a communications desert. I disagree strongly with the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. Why should companies that have paid a fortune for licences be forced to pay more to cover areas that it is
  818
  commercially impossible to cover? We disagree fundamentally there. The Government have made enough money out of all this without getting further help.
  The Government made a serious mistake in the bidding process, as they were interested only in the numbers that bidders were prepared to gamble. The Chancellor and his chief economic adviser were willing to take the money, but they failed to consider how the various broadband services were to be rolled out and funded. Conservative Members vehemently opposed the bidding war that the Government created, and we pointed out that implementation of those services would be slow. We are seeing the consequences at this very moment, and the Government are to blame, as they were very greedy up-front. Now they are unable and unprepared to put their hand in their pocket to ensure that everybody in this country gets broadband services.
  Mr. Chris Mole: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Page: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not like hearing this, but the Government are not prepared to ensure that everybody gets the broadband services that they deserve and that other EU countries are to provide.
  Conservative Members can thoroughly endorse the promotion of competition. The Bill will give a new regulatory body a duty to promote that aim, and I hope that it will be successful—but, both inside and outside the House, we shall still need to assure ourselves that that aim and the means suggested for accomplishing it are fully compatible.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Eric Joyce: Having listened to the excellent speeches made so far, I want to raise two points. They may not be hugely original, and others may raise them later, but I shall raise them none the less.
  My first point relates chiefly to newspapers. Clause 359 repeals sections 57 to 62 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, and places the newspaper industry under the merger control regime set out in the Enterprise Act 2002. Clauses 361 to 375 specify the rules under which the Government can intervene when there is concern about a monopoly or an abundance of ownership in a particular part of the market, not just in the United Kingdom as a whole but, according to my reading, in parts of it. I am not sure whether that would apply to, say, Scotland or Wales—perhaps others will be able to interpret it better—but there has certainly been a lot of debate in Scotland over the last few weeks because of the potential sale of The Herald to the proprietor of another Scottish newspaper.
  I suspect that most Members with an interest in Scottish affairs want as diverse a market as possible in Scotland. In fact, the subject was discussed in Westminster Hall earlier today. I do not know what will happen about The Herald It will be a commercial judgment for the directors of the Scottish Media Group, who have a legal obligation to ensure that they secure the best possible return for the shareholder. They can take account of various factors, such as the wellbeing

  819
  and welfare of staff, but those are pretty marginal issues. By and large, they are constrained by the size of the bids that come in.
  Having said that most people want as diverse a market as possible, I should add that what are often described as London newspapers during Scottish debates are, in fact, United Kingdom newspapers. All are sold in Scotland, many in "editorialised" form. I would like to see more people in Scotland reading The Guardian, and I would like The Guardian to make more effort to sell itself in Scotland, but there it is. Whatever rationale underpins the decision of the Scottish Media Group directors, it seems entirely possible that ownership of The Herald and The Scotsman will remain in separate hands; but I think it worth saying, for future reference, that that should best happen through the market rather than through political intervention.
  Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman share my fear that, if the Bill is passed in its current form, the takeover will be more permissible and most likely?
  Mr. Joyce: I am not sure that that follows. What I am saying is that, wherever possible, the market should dictate such developments. Moreover—this has been discussed at length, at least in Scotland—there should be scope for consolidation of media ownership. The Scottish Media Group is a strong regionally based group which is divesting itself of The Herald, and I think it should be able to consolidate. I think that the Bill allows about the right amount of regulation.
  I suspect that the market will take care of things on this occasion, but it is possible that in due course—in five years, perhaps; who knows how long—the problem will rear its head again in Scotland. At present it is widely recognised that, despite considerable investment by the owners of The Scotsman, the paper has not performed as well in the markets as The Herald Views vary; I think The Scotsman is a perfectly good newspaper. The Herald has certainly performed well, although its journalists would say that it had received less investment because it was part of a larger media group that some feel has erred in the direction of television interests.
  Those points are open to debate, but in Scotland there seems to be a substantial market for one newspaper and only half a market for the other, and I am not certain that market conditions will change over the years. The markets will probably sort this out to the reasonable satisfaction of most MPs and members of the public, but we may well need to return to it, and I hope that in that event it will be dealt with not through political intervention but through the market's delivery of the right solution.
  My second point relates to impartiality. An important principle of broadcasting in the United Kingdom has always been the fair, accurate and impartial delivery of news, and I expect that most Members support that principle. So far, the only argument against impartiality—well, there may be others, but it is the only one of which I am aware—has been advanced by Rupert Murdoch and one or two others who believe that the markets should be allowed to deliver television news in the same way as they deliver it in newspapers. In other words, they believe that the expression of editorial
  820
  opinion should be permitted, and that it should be slanted in relation to choice. People would watch this or that news programme according to its slant, just as they might buy newspapers according to their slant.
  That argument has been more or less defeated until now, and has constituted the main challenge to impartiality. However, a report by Professor Ian Hargreaves, on behalf of the ITC—which is about to make way for Ofcom—raises an important point. News providers, if they can be called that, such as al-Jazeera broadcast from outside the UK through satellite channels. They represent a minority interest in the UK at present, but cynics might argue that they do not attempt to be impartial; they attempt to target a specific market, which is what proponents of the anti-impartiality argument have argued should happen in the UK.
  I suspect that the fact that it does happen, and that such channels are available in the UK, may put pressure on the Government. It may not be necessary to take account of the possibility in Committee, but if a market develops for impartial services broadcast from abroad it may have a substantial bearing on the whole issue of impartiality.
  The issue arises in particular in regard to the attitudes of members of black and ethnic-minority communities. While the UK public as a whole support impartiality as a principle, that does not apply to the same extent to those who are not white. A market could arise for foreign services that could not be delivered from the UK—foreign services conveying far more extreme messages. This may seem far fetched, but although some people say that channels such as al-Jazeera are rubbish, high-quality journalists work for them and capable people run them. They target their markets in a very slanted and cynical way.
  I want to put down a marker for the future. The impartiality issue raised by Professor Hargreaves will need to be revisited. I feel, however, that the Bill has the right touch in terms of its regulation and the way in which it allows the markets to do their own thing, but to step in when it may be necessary. That, I think, is just about the right balance.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. David Cameron: I should begin by pointing out my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I am a consultant to Carlton Communications, for which I worked for seven and a half years before coming to this place. What I say is coloured by my experiences in working for Carlton, and I make no apologies for that. It is a heavily regulated industry, and I hope that it will be useful to talk about my experience in it.
  I welcome the Bill. The television and media industries need to be treated much more like other industries. Regulation has held those industries back, and that fact flows from a fundamental point that we cannot get away from. We have five terrestrial channels, three of which are state-owned. One of the other two, ITV, still has huge regulatory burdens, and the commercial sector in this country is, if anything, still too small.
  I am concerned about the size of the Bill. Everyone talks about deregulation, but it is something of a monster. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield

  821
  (Michael Fabricant) said, it will be a source of disappointment to the industry that the legislation actually adds to, rather than supersedes, the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. I remember how difficult it was when working at Carlton to take decisions such as whether to invest in a cable company or in radio, or to change the schedule, when all the time one had to refer to two—now, it is three—enormous documents. That can be quite debilitating. We ought to encourage television and media companies to invest where there is value.
  It is also a truism to say—but it needs to be said—that if people do not like something on television, they will not watch it. The Minister should have that message burned into her desk, along with the answer to this question: why do television companies make great programmes? They do so not because of who sits on the Content Board, the contents of a Bill, or what a Minister says, but because people in the industry go to work every day wanting to make great programmes, because schedulers want the strongest schedule, and because airtime sales wants to sell advertising. That is why we can watch programmes such as "Dr. Zhivago" on ITV, and "Walking With Dinosaurs" and "Daniel Deronda" on the BBC.
  I want to deal with the question of what was wrong with previous legislation, given that, once the Bill is enacted, we will have had three such Acts in the past 12 years. The 1990 Act was deregulatory, but it prevented terrestrial television companies from expanding. They should have been allowed into cable and satellite, but they were not. The 1996 Act was better, but digital terrestrial television, which I was involved with at Carlton, was hopelessly over-regulated. There were very complex rules about how many digital channels one could own. In the end, that was used by Sky as an excuse—and legitimately so—to say, "We can't sell you our channels to put on your platform because of these very complicated rules." The lesson that we must learn is not that there has been too much deregulation, but that there has not been enough.
  I want to mention four elements of the Bill, the first of which concerns the changes relating to ownership, which are overdue and welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said that consolidation should not harm regionalism, and I believe that he is right. Individual ITV licences, the board and programme policy statements still exist. However, we should note that television companies make regional programmes not just because they are told to by regulators, but because they work. That is one of the great strengths of television in this country. Such programmes are not always purely regional; they include programmes made in a region that are included in the national schedule. One thinks of "Peak Practice", which is made in the midlands, of "Heartbeat", which is made in Yorkshire, and of "Taggart", which is made in Scotland. The star of "Taggart" died five years ago, yet it continues on peak time ITV because it is such a terrific programme.
  Mr. Boris Johnson: It is? What is "Taggart"?
  Mr. Cameron: My hon. Friend tries to distract me from a sedentary position.
  822
  There are scare stories about foreign ownership. The main such story that we read is that, if a US company takes over Channel Five or ITV, we will suddenly be flooded with cheap programmes from America that will be dumped on to our market. That is nonsense. The figures and the schedules show that domestic production beats imports every time. Mercifully, the days of the BBC showing "Dallas" or "Dynasty" at peak time have gone, because everybody in television knows that domestic production—home-made programmes—is what wins. If ITV or the BBC wanted to buy reams of American programmes and clump them into the schedule, they could do so now. One simply goes to one of these well-upholstered television festivals in Los Angeles or Cannes, and buys them. However, I do not believe that that would happen.
  On reading commentators on such matters, one sometimes gets the feeling that, if only the BBC or ITV had had the foresight to buy "The West Wing" or "Friends", all their problems would be over. That is nonsense. Much better to have programmes such as "The Bill", "Coronation Street" or "EastEnders", because it is domestic production that delivers the audience. The scare story about foreign ownership is simply not right. Deregulating ownership is a good thing—it will allow investment to flow, exactly as the Secretary of State described.
  My second point concerns ITN, to which Members on both sides of the House have referred. The case has not been made for ownership restrictions on ITN. Every major television channel in the world owns its own news supplier. ABC owns ABC News, and NBC owns NBC News. Why would having outside shareholders suddenly make such a news supplier stronger? If that were the case, we should tell the BBC, "You cannot own BBC News—it must have outside shareholders." As the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) said, there would be a real benefit in having strong shareholders who care about ITN. In fact, there is a very good example of that. ITN's 24-hour news channel is now owned exclusively by the two ITV companies, because the other ITN shareholders did not want to continue to fund a loss-making channel. That is good evidence that having strong shareholders who get behind the news supplier is a very good thing. I hope that we can change the Bill in that respect.
  My third point concerns content regulation. Everyone talks about this big Bill as having a light touch, but I wonder about that. Some have even expressed the concern that it is not tough enough, and that there should be more regulations, but I am not sure that I agree. As I said, television companies do not make great programmes because of the content of a Bill, or what a regulator says. The Bill still provides for statements of programme policy, based on existing licences, that every television company will have to produce. Clause 256 includes a very full description of what public service broadcasting actually means in the multi-channel world. According to clause 259, one cannot change a programme policy statement without permission from Ofcom. It could be argued that, in a multi-channel world with many competing channels, the Bill constitutes active regulation, rather than a light touch.

  823
  I turn to my fourth and final point. There is no point in criticising a Bill for being too long unless one can think of something to remove from it. and I suggest removing the part concerning the consumer panel. What are consumer panels for? The creation of a giant bureaucracy is being suggested. They just might be suitable for telecoms—for which we have had such panels in the past—but please do not extend them to television. As I said, if people do not like what is on television, they switch off or switch over. The "off" button is often the best regulator that there is.
  This is a good Bill, but it still imposes too much control. If we set the media industry free, we will be able to watch it grow. The Secretary of State's name appears very frequently in the Bill, and I hope that, during its passage, the ministerial team will consider what further regulations they can get rid of, what powers they can cede, and what controls they can give up. If they do that, they will produce a very good Bill, and the industry will be thankful.
  7.48 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I welcome the Bill, and the Government are to be congratulated on the way in which it has been handled. The pre-legislative scrutiny and the extent to which the recommendations were accepted provided a model for such matters, and in the light of that I hope that proceedings in Committee will not be unnecessarily long. Although the Bill is very big, many of the arguments have already been rehearsed, so repeating them might be unduly tedious.
  Most of today's debate has, understandably, been content-driven. That is primarily because this issue is of concern to the chattering classes; indeed, we have all been subjected to lobbying on a massive scale in that regard. Some have expressed concern about the role of the BBC, and I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who pointed out that we will be able to address the charter issue in a couple of years' time.
  I hope that the charter will be dealt with in the same way as the Bill. We need a sensible debate. It would be appropriate to revisit the matter if shortcomings are found in the BBC's structure, but not before.
  However, I want to make a nod in the direction of the telecommunications sector. Understandably, and for the reasons that I have given, we have tended to lose sight of the importance of that sector, and especially of the role of the regulator in challenging BT's power and strength.
  I am not an opponent of BT, but it is understandable that it should protect its position. Some of its financial calls have caused it difficulties, but by the same token it is making a remarkable recovery. It retains great power and influence, and dominates the market. Its fixed infrastructure has the capacity to exclude potential players. It has the strength to embrace and adopt technological change in ways that can influence market development. For those reasons, regulation is necessary for some time to come.
  Initially, it was suggested that regulation might be like Lenin's concept of the state—that the need for it would wither away. However, very much like Lenin's state, regulation has persisted for a considerable period, although it is probably regarded more benignly than the governance of the former Soviet Union.
  824
  It is clear that Oftel, in what might be called its dying days, has been quite effective and has addressed a number of issues. The package produced in August that provided protection for the poorest 80 per cent. of customers has been very useful. I am Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and we have had our moments with Oftel. Occasionally, we have felt that its director general, David Edmonds, has not properly understood the nature of competition. For example, he has said that four mobile phone companies are somehow competitive, even though they each account for some 18 to 22 per cent. of the market, or a little more. Also, he sometimes seemed to ignore the concept of complex monopoly, which occurs when players of roughly similar size behave in exactly the same way—albeit independently—and come to fairly convenient conclusions about their market situation.
  Regulation must have a continuing role. It must not restrict progress or be too prescriptive, but it should promote the market and at the same time protect consumers. Some consumers remain vulnerable. For example, they buy the wrong mobile system with the wrong pricing arrangements. Young people do not always appreciate the costs involved, and anyone who has had teenage children going through the mobile phase will have been presented with bills or demands for additional pocket money because mobile cards have become exhausted more quickly than anticipated. Such considerations must be borne in mind.
  It has been suggested of late that the regulator has been captured by BT. Some have felt that, when we were talking about unbundling the local loop, Oftel's director general was unduly understanding of BT. Instead of going in with a bludgeon, he wanted to continue talking. As a result, we lost valuable time, and the unbundling process has never recovered. We started seriously on the process too late in the day. By the time the process really got under way, the telecoms bubble had burst—fortunately, one might say. The director general took the view that it was better to negotiate than to act by diktat. I think that it is sometimes better to go in hard and quickly than to try to achieve something through protracted negotiation.
  However, I want to take Ministers to task about the proposed consumer panel. In our brief regulatory experience, there have been several examples of how a so-called consumer council has become largely a creature of the regulator. Under the old electricity regulatory system, the relevant body depended on the regulator for secretarial assistance; it had little independence and few resources. I would like to think that that will not be repeated, and that the regulatory process adopted by Ofcom will have integrity and independence. I hope that the consumer panel will represent the Secretary of State, and that there will be a clear separation of powers.
  It is fair to say that Energywatch, the body responsible for protecting energy consumers, has, after a rather slow start, become an extremely effective voice in defence of some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in our society who depend on gas and electricity supplies. Its strength lies in its physical, financial and political independence from Ofgem. I think that that model, which exists already in the Government's regulatory system, is worth consideration.

  825
  On the whole, the Bill is worth while and ambitious. I have not gone into its effects on media such as television and the like; I shall leave that to others. However, in the past couple of years, the telecoms sector has been effective and robust. We should ensure that the new set-up is not concerned only with market power and how that is controlled. We should also give proper consideration to the needs of consumers. With a bit of tweaking and care and attention, the Bill will provide a more independent and effective way to deal with such matters.
  That is my only misgiving about the Bill, but it is relatively minor and not too serious. I wish the Bill well, and I also wish success to those who serve on the Standing Committee.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I beg to move,
  That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Communications Bill because it fails to ensure the representation of Wales and Scotland on the Office of Communications (OFCOM); does not address the needs of people with disabilities adequately; does not regulate sufficiently cross-media ownership; does not protect against a monopoly of ownership; fails to ensure access for all to digital broadcasting and broadband communications; and further weakens democratic scrutiny and regulation of industries which are vital to citizenship.
  I am pleased to speak to the reasoned amendment tabled in my name and in that of colleagues from the Scottish National party. We oppose giving the Bill a Second Reading on principle, but I acknowledge the value of the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure through which the Bill has gone. The Bill has been improved by that process and I welcome that, even though my party cannot support the Bill at this stage.
  We have two principal concerns about the Bill. First, we consider that it still enables the broadcasting and IT industries to serve the needs of business more than the needs of the public. I am glad that the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) recognised the need for regulation in the sector, although we believe that the Bill does not go far enough. Secondly, we oppose the lack of Scottish and Welsh representation in the proposed Ofcom set-up. The regulator thereby lacks democratic representation.
  We believe that the proposed regulatory system is centralist in its approach to Scotland and Wales, and to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Before devolution, Wales and Scotland were represented at the highest level on the Radio Authority, the ITC, the BBC and the telecommunications advisory committee. Under Ofcom, Wales and Scotland will be represented only on the advisory bodies—the content body and the consumer panel.
  That is further forward than where we were a year ago when it was not guaranteed that even that would happen. However, it is ironic that we have less representation now, post-devolution—albeit on a non-devolved issue—than we had pre-devolution. There is a democratic deficit for the people of Wales and Scotland. All we have left is a seat on the BBC Wales board of governors.
  Rosemary McKenna: Ofcom will have a board of nine; it will then appoint a contents board and a consumer panel. The Bill states that it will set those up with a representative from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; Ofcom will then set up offices in each country. Given that there is a board of nine, that there is direct contact in each country and that broadcasting is a UK-retained issue, surely that set-up will be much better than the current one.
  Mr. Thomas: I cannot agree with the hon. Lady that the situation will be better than at present. At least we currently have representation on the ITC and the Radio Authority, but we will not have representation on Ofcom.
  In the Committee considering the Office of Communications Bill, I moved an amendment to provide that the board should consist not of nine members but 15, which would have allowed representation from all areas of the United Kingdom. That was one way forward.
  The hon. Lady says that Ofcom will appoint a consumer panel and a content panel. That is even worse—a body with no democratic representation from Wales or Scotland appoints bodies to look after Wales and Scotland. The decision-making and advisory powers will he delegated to Ofcom. Nothing in the Bill says that, in making those appointments, Ofcom has to negotiate, discuss or even take advice from the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales. That is a scandal in terms of the relationship between Westminster and other democratic bodies. The Labour-Liberal Democrat Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales and the Cabinet and Executive of the Scottish Parliament both asked for this level of representation in the Bill. That is a problem.
  There is an alternative way forward. If we are not to get direct representation, we can consider representative bodies for Wales and Scotland. I have advocated an overall Wales or Scotland advisory committee to advise Ofcom. It is vital that Ofcom make an annual report to the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales on its activities in broadcasting and IT within Wales. Again, that is not provided for in the Bill. The other suggestion is to have a separate consumer panel for Wales and Scotland.
  Miss Begg: I am sure that Ofcom will reflect all the constituent parts and regions of the UK. What would be the purpose of a separate report to the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly when they can read the national report that covers everybody? The relevant section will be in the report for them to read.
  Mr. Thomas: I do not know what the situation is like in Scotland, but when I want to find out what is happening about Wales I have to read the footnotes of UK reports.
  Wales has a Welsh language broadcasting channel, which has not been mentioned tonight. S4C is the fourth channel in Wales, and we need to know what Ofcom is doing to support Welsh language broadcasting in Wales as well as digital English language broadcasting in Wales. That is a specific requirement that my party would like to see.
  Pete Wishart: Does not my hon. Friend find it incredible that Scottish Members are arguing for a

  827
  solution to a situation that will be worse than the present one? Even Jack McConnell, the First Minister, was brave enough to make representations to ensure that we had a place on the Ofcom board. Surely Labour Members would agree to our having a place at Ofcom's top table.
  Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend has made my point for me. I shall certainly not go any further down that road.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that at a time when the S4C budget has been slashed there should be no representation on this body?
  Mr. Thomas: I do share my hon. Friend's concern and will mention the S4C budget in a moment.
  Issues of broadband and IT infrastructure are also of vital interest to Wales. Access to digital broadcasting and broadband is different in Wales because its population—and that of Scotland—is unevenly distributed. There is physical geography to take into account, such as the problems of mountains. That means that the television spectrum is much fuller. We need many more transmitters to achieve transmission throughout Wales. In that context, broadband is lagging behind. Wales is at the bottom of UK broadband connectivity. I do not know where Scotland is, but I think that it is in the same position.
  We are told that broadband access will be achieved at the south pole by 2011 but not in rural Wales or Scotland. I met BT yesterday to discuss issues in my constituency. I have one exchange in my constituency that can take ADSL, and that is only because of public subsidy—in other words, the project has been funded by Europe. We must move more quickly on these matters. I would like the Government to look again at the 95 per cent. threshold for the switch-off from an analogue to a digital signal and bear in mind that although that figure could be reached at a UK level, about 70 per cent. of the population of Wales and 70 per cent. of the population of Scotland might not have access to digital transmissions. Members representing seats in both countries would have a problem if their constituents were to opt to turn off their signal when there was no access to digital transmissions.
  Mr. Roger Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Thomas: I regret that I cannot now; I have taken several interventions.
  The other aspect of the Bill that is worthy of mention is the public service commitment within Ofcom. There is a series of regional quotas, and I use the word "regional" advisedly. However, I remind the House that "regional" in Wales, as in Scotland, is national. In Wales, HTV is a national television channel, and it sees itself as such, particularly post-devolution. I welcome that.
  The Bill states that the channel 3 programmes made in the United Kingdom outside the M25 area—a very patronising way to look at things—constitute what appears to Ofcom to be a suitable range. Once again, a body that has no Welsh or Scottish representation decides what sort of regional production is suitable for
  828
  Wales and Scotland. That is not good enough. We would like the Bill to be amended to take into account the need to protect and encourage radio and television programming from Wales but also to Wales, and in both the languages of Wales.
  That brings me to S4C and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). S4C celebrates its 20th anniversary this year; it has been one of the great success stories of broadcasting in Wales. It has created a whole creative industry in Wales, not only in Cardiff but in the west, towards Swansea and towards the north. This rolling-out of a creative industry has encouraged other industries into the area. The final scene of the recently released Bond film, for example, was shot in my constituency, and I look forward to seeing that beach in the film.
  The Bill says that S4C will continue to need to provide a substantial amount of Welsh language programming. There is no definition of "substantial", and we need to know what it means in this context. Eighty or 90 per cent. will mean nothing if we do not have funding to enable S4C to meet the digital challenge. S4C recently approached the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with a £3.5 million bid. That sounds like a lot of money, but, given the threat to language programming, it is not. The money would have enabled S4C to deliver a wider range of digital programmes. It is the only public service broadcaster that has not received a penny for digital programmes. The BBC has been able to negotiate a significant rise in its licence fee to pay for digital programmes, some of which—on the net, for example—are available in Welsh, curiously enough, thus apparently taking away some of the audience for S4C. That is an interesting perspective and we will need to explore it further. I want the Government to take on board the recommendation and acknowledgement in the Joint Committee's report that S4C's funding should be looked at again in the light of the digital revolution.
  We are concerned that the situation outlined by Labour Members regarding cross-media ownership will arise, leading to a lack of accountability in Wales. We shall see not a plethora of owners, but the centralisation of ownership in the hands of a few companies or individuals.
  We do not consider that regulation will necessarily be burdensome. In our view, it can protect the public interest. Parliament is giving up control over citizenship and over regulation of the broadcasting industry to a regulator. I accept that in principle, but we must be sure that the regulator will take fully democratic principles into account. Until that is achieved in the measure and until the Bill recognises the different circumstances that apply to the broadcasting and communications industries in Wales and Scotland, we shall continue to oppose some of its principles.
  8.10 pm
  John Robertson: I want to declare an interest, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests. I worked for BT for 31 years. I am a member of Connect—the union for professionals in communications—and my researcher is funded by

  829
  Connect. I am also the chair of the all-party group on telecommunications, so it is probably safe to say that I have more than a passing interest in this subject.
  I prepared a long speech, but as the debate has progressed, many points have been raised on which questions need to be answered. Unfortunately, as many of those issues were raised by Opposition Members who have since left the Chamber I cannot put my questions to them, so I shall make my points to the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms).
  It is crucial that Ofcom follow the mandate stipulated in the Bill and that we be confident that the House can monitor that effectively. It is also important that we and the Secretary of State examine how Ofcom does its job. The Select Committees on Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and on Trade and Industry have considered the Bill, but we should think about setting up a new Select Committee to deal primarily with Ofcom.
  Ofcom is composed of five bodies that cover everything relating to communications and broadcasting and is likely to be one of the most important bodies set up by the Government. It will probably be more important than anything done in this field during the 18 years of the previous Conservative Government.
  The existing structure has not resulted in detailed or regular assessment. The current regulatory bodies do not work. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who said how well Oftel had worked. I remember the problems that we experienced with Atlantic Telecom when, as was pointed out in a previous speech, Oftel was as much good as a chocolate fireguard. I hope that Ofcom will deal much better with problems in broadcasting than Oftel did with problems in telecommunications. Many of my constituents found that their businesses were going down the tube because telephone numbers listed in "Yellow Pages" and other publications no longer existed.
  The Joint Committee which undertook pre-legislative scrutiny did an excellent job and its members are to be commended for their work. However, they missed one point in relation to clause 24, which deals with training. Training and education for staff in the broadcasting industry will he covered by Ofcom, but the same provision does not seem to apply to the telecommunications side of the business, where no scrutiny is provided for.
  In effect, that means that in times of plenty when business is booming, a company such as BT, for which I used to work, could supply all the new companies that spring up. Those companies could cherry-pick all the good workers and experts. But what happens if there are no companies to provide training? What will happen if there is no one to train people in the new technology that is being developed?
  A recent study produced some startling figures. According to the European Information Technology Observatory, the number of unfilled vacancies in the ICT and e-business sectors in the European Union is expected to rise from 2.23 million in 2001 to 3.67 million
  830
  in 2003—a 65 per cent. increase in the number of people who will be unable do the job. We have to deal with that problem.
  New technology is not something that people can just pick up. We have to train people in it; we have to train them to maintain it. The Bill needs to be better balanced. It seems to suggest that we must provide education and training for broadcasting but that people can do as they please on the telecommunications side. We need to ensure that people in both sectors are trained.
  The hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) said that we needed to examine the regulation of mobiles and mobile companies. He pointed out that as such companies had experienced great growth, they should be regulated. However, those companies amassed customers and grew so fast precisely because they were not subject to strong regulation.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) pointed out that there was no broadband in his country—nor is there in mine or in many parts of England. Part of the problem is that the regulator prevented companies such as BT from getting out into the marketplace.
  These companies were so busy looking over their shoulder to see what the regulator was saying that they missed the boat, and two years clown the line they had an excellent product but could not market it because everyone had forgotten what the product was. We have reached the stage now where people in places such as the rural areas of Scotland and Wales, and for that matter England, cannot get broadband because the company cannot afford to put staff out there. If we had started back when there was a boom, we might all have broadband; even if we did not, we would certainly have better companies than we do today.
  Mr. Mole: Does my hon. Friend accept, in the context of the argument about the rolling out of broadband to rural areas, that we need to bear in mind the fact that there are fundamental physical limitations to the reach of technologies such as ADSL, based on the competence of existing technology; that it is only with the creation of new technology such as the delivery of broadband by satellite that some of these areas can be reached; and that we shall have these problems again when we have high data rate digital subscriber line and very high data rate digital subscriber line?
  John Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. I am sure that people in Wales and Scotland can identify with that. They will have to pay thousands of pounds for something for which other people will be able to pay hundreds or less. We must lighten the regulator's grip and allow companies to grow.
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) mentioned Deutsche Telecom. Earlier in the year, I visited Deutsche Telecom in Munich to look at its ADSL and I was surprised when I discovered how quickly the company was growing. It has been growing because its regulator does not impose strong commitments on it. The company saw a niche in the market. It cut its prices. It went and did it, and only then asked the regulator whether it was okay. The company did not think about what the regulator was going to say,

  831
  put forward a business case, took months to go to the regulator, then suddenly found out that the regulator now agreed to what it was proposing.
  Brian White: Is it not true that one of the reasons why Deutsche Telecom did that was that it knew that it had to divest itself of its cable companies, and to stifle competition it put broadband into the areas when it was going to have to divest itself of those companies?
  John Robertson: My hon. Friend is correct, but we are now lagging behind with broadband. We must get broadband out there, and if we are to bring the UK up to the standard of some of our competitors, we need to get out there now.
  Another thing was missing from the Bill. One group that was never mentioned as a stakeholder was employees. Employees work at the sharp end. They know about their companies. Yes, they may look after their own interests when negotiating with management, but they know more about the business than the management force do, and they should have been regarded as stakeholders and allowed to participate in the advisory bodies, because they can probably contribute more than most. Not only do they have knowledge of the companies for which they work, but they are customers, so they have a very firm grounding. Those are the people who are missing: the people who do the work, who have the knowledge about how the product works. I know many very good managers who know how to run companies, but they know absolutely nothing about their product. I believe that in the case of BT and the selling of broadband to the country, that has been the main problem: the people who knew most about broadband were not the ones who were marketing it, and we all know what has happened.
  I feel passionately about this subject, and if I am fortunate enough to be asked to serve on the Committee, I shall take great pleasure in doing so. There are lots of other aspects of the Bill that I should like to discuss with the relevant Ministers, which probably ensures that I shall not be asked to be a Committee member. I believe that communication is the No. 1 thing in this country; we all need to communicate. One of the best things that we can do to make that possible is to give it to the people and ensure that they know how to use it and can get access to it.
  8.22 pm
  John Thurso: I have listened with great interest to the debate. On the broad principles there is a fairly strong welcome for the Bill on both sides of the House, with considerable reservations, which have been expressed. Having served on the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport when we held an inquiry before the draft legislation was produced, I found that, as I learned more, my understanding actually lessened. The communications industry has definitely proved to be a challenge to me. However, I commend the Government for the way in which they have taken this process forward. It has proved beyond doubt that taking the time to produce draft legislation and providing the opportunity for scrutiny produces far better Bills. This Bill is immeasurably better than the one that we started with some time ago.
  832
  It also became clear from what we saw in our Committee that prescriptive legislation of the type that we have had in the past is out of date almost the moment it arrives on the statute book, so the Bill had to try to set down principles and a mechanism that would last for some time into the future. I believe that broadly, with one or two reservations, the Bill achieves that.
  I should like to address three specific concerns. They are all relatively Scottish, but they could just as easily be expressed for Wales or, indeed, many of the rural regions of England. My first point relates to the way in which the Bill sets out to represent the nations and regions. I wish to say at the outset that, when our Select Committee considered the issue, I was predisposed, although with an open mind, to think that, in all probability, Ofcom's main board should include representation from Scotland and Wales.
  Having heard the evidence, however, especially that given to the Select Committee by the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, I reached the view that it was far more sensible for Ofcom's main board to do the job of regulating the industry and not to set out at that point to deal with the more complex issues of sectional, national or regional representation. Having reached that view, however, my concern is that the consumer and content panels will not necessarily fulfil the role that I would expect them to play.
  Scotland—this goes for Wales, too—has a very diverse and different architecture from that of England. For example, one of my constituents, Miss Hutt, who lives in a croft near the village of Dunbeath, recently applied to BT for a telephone. Having initially been quoted about £74, she was quoted just under £12,000 when the survey was done. Bearing in mind that the nearest telephone line was 400 m away and that she lives 500 m from the main A9, that was somewhat expensive. The price was reduced to £3,000, when she agreed to dig the trench and lay the cable herself, but £3,000 for a telephone is still rather worrying. Therefore, it is particularly important that the consumer panel should have sufficient teeth and that the provisions that relate to it should be strengthened.
  The Bill simply states that Scotland and Wales should have one representative on the consumer panel and one representative each on the content panel. If that is all there is, it is a pretty weak force to look after the contents and the consumers. I must say that, having accepted totally the fact that the Ofcom's main board should not include such representation, I should like to see much stronger representation on the consumer panel by including in the Bill an advisory council for Scotland and one for Wales. Ofcom has the power to ask for that, but it does not have a duty to provide it at the moment, and that is one change that I should like to see.
  The second point, to which other hon. Members have referred, is the analogue switch-off. My constituency—all 3,000 and several hundred square miles of it—contains areas throughout much of Sutherland's north-west coast that barely receive analogue broadcasts. One gets used to watching television through a figurative or literal snow. When the switch-off takes place, those people will be deprived of any signal. It is highly unlikely that they will receive a digital signal, so Ofcom should be given a strong steer towards ensuring that, when the analogue switch-off occurs and we go to digital only,

  833
  constituents such as mine who live in remote rural areas will not find themselves entirely deprived of terrestrial television and forced to rely on satellite services. I hope that we will consider that issue in Committee.
  The third issue that I should like to address is the broadband roll-out. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed the importance of broadband services. I should like to refer particularly to the highlands.
  We were fortunate to have considerable Government investment, through the Highlands and Islands development board and its successor body, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, in integrated services digital network, which was the great technology of a decade ago. As a result, we have a considerable number of high-tech companies, which rely on communications to be able to make money. By not enabling broadband, those companies, which require high-quality communications, are not merely denied a competitive advantage but put at a huge competitive disadvantage. There is a company in Wick that is going to relocate to India if broadband is not introduced within two years. That is the scale of the competition. Once companies decide to move, they do not just move out of the north of Scotland or Scotland as a whole; they move out of the United Kingdom altogether.
  I therefore make the same point to the Minister as I made to the Secretary of State in the Select Committee. Given the amount of public money that has been invested in fibre optic cable running up near to the A9 and in the implementation of ISDN, and given the companies that depend on that, the Government must take the lead in the broadband roll-out. If they do not, we will end up losing out on the investment that has already been made. With those principal reservations, I warmly welcome the Bill and look forward to its passage through the House.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: This is a unique Bill. It is unique in its size—it is enormous—unique in that it has received such a broad welcome across the country, and unique in that almost all Front-Bench spokesmen, apart from the nitpicking nationalists, have given it a broad welcome today. It is unique, too, because it produces broad acceptance but also many problems, reservations, cavils, quibbles and difficulties, which have been well aired tonight. I propose to add my contribution to that.
  I must start by saying that I am a bit suspicious of the Bill. I am suspicious because I am conservative about change—that is why I am a member of the Labour party—and because I do not want change in structures that have given us the least worst television in the world, with a system of regulation that has stopped the descent to lowest common denominators and with different sources of funding. In the end, if pigs are fed from the same trough, they produce the same manure. We have managed to avoid that in British television.
  834
  It would not be too much to say that there was a golden age in British television—largely a period in which I worked in it, having worked for the BBC, ITV and Sky, and having run a local radio station, which is a fairly unique experience—which was ended by the Conservative legislation of 1990. That legislation was sold to us on much the same grounds as those on which this Bill is being sold to us. We were told that we must give television the scale to take on the world. Now we are being told that we must bring in the world to take it over, because it is not investing enough. We were told that we must have light-touch regulation, which has led gradually to the dumbing down and the relegation of current affairs, news and politics to late night slots that would normally be filled by sex or romantic interludes. Television is now largely about building—DIY—botox and bellies, given the endless cooking programmes.
  I am therefore suspicious about dumbing down, which I do not want to be furthered by the Bill. I am also suspicious about the briefing given to Labour Back Benchers, which describes the Bill as
  "creating the most dynamic, competitive communications industry in the world—opening up competition, removing unnecessary burdens on business and streamlining the regulatory environment…ensuring universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality that viewers, listeners and customers expect—we will not compromise on quality."
  All that—and "Blind Date" too—will be quite an achievement.
  The Bill will not be the beginning of the reign of virtue, however, as it will be the beginning of a period of great turmoil. First, all the different regulators, each of which have their own agendas, which they will want to maintain, will be shoved in one box and will have to learn to work together by new rules. A period of difficulty from 2003 onwards will follow. Then there will be the skirmishing for takeovers as we settle into the new organisations.
  We also face the problem—we are dealing with it today and I hope that we will deal with it in Committee—that results from the fact that the devil is in the Bill's detail. I shall say something about some of the problems that I envisage, because we must state our basic view and describe what we want from the Bill. That will guide its implementation.
  I seem to be a lone voice when I say that the BBC should be subject as little as possible to the new regulatory framework. The BBC is a unique institution. It is a public corporation that has its own procedures and methods of dealing with complaints. At the moment, there is a good deal of jealousy of the BBC, partly because Greg Dyke is a driving, dynamic and competitive head of the BBC, arid partly because it has much more money than ITV. People are envious. Far too much of that money has gone into creating new digital channels that no one watches rather than into producing programmes. More than £100 million has been wasted so far on News 24, which is only just coming into its own. The BBC suffers from premature digital ejaculation and the money should be devoted to making programmes. However, that is a matter not for the regulator but for the licence and charter renewal that is ahead of us. These matters can be taken care of then.

  835
  ITV has had a hard time. I suppose that it is inevitable that there will be one ITV company. Perhaps that will not be too bad, as long as it is Granada, which has a passionate concern about programmes and about regional activity, and not Carlton, which has a passionate concern about money. However, when ITV is one company, it is important that we maintain regional production, the regional framework, regional centres of excellence in television, such as that in Yorkshire, and the regional clusters of independent producers that are found around each existing company. Such clusters are also found around the BBC, which is putting a lot more into the regions.
  We want dynamic production on a big scale that takes place outside the M25. It is nice that "outside the M25" is now a legislative concept, but it could have been called civilisation actually. We need production outside the M25 and ITV is the main framework to which it should be attached. We must keep up the pressure for that. It will be more difficult to maintain a regional service if ITV becomes only one company. The regional service has been ITV's strength and provided its roots, and it brings it much benefit. The service also brings the regions many benefits in terms of employment, economic stimulus and all the activities that go with it. Pressure will have to be kept up to maintain that service. To do that, it must be possible to turf out a provider—even if it is one company—because that would provide a check over quality. It must be possible for a rival contender to exist and there should be a review that examines whether a provider is performing properly.
  On ITV, I echo the general view that it is insane that ITV is not allowed to control ITN. ITN is the only news organisation that does not have its own news channel, but it should be able to control one. ITV was good and adequately funded when the individual companies controlled it. We should return to that situation.
  We should maintain the protected status of Channel Five. I know that people say that it is not particularly important as it is only a small channel. They argue that not much could happen if it were bought by Murdoch or an overseas company. However, let us consider what happened to The Sun. It was only a small and noncompetitive newspaper that did not serve much purpose. Murdoch took it over and what happened then? It is entirely possible that, if Channel Five buys an audience with sport and has money pumped into it, it might become a major problem for ITV.
  I am trying to scoot through the issues quickly, but I want to say something about foreign ownership. European Union rules require us to allow European bidders, but it is not a level playing field. It would be difficult for a British company to take over television production or radio stations in France. Let us consider the problems that Murdoch faced with Kirch, for example.
  I agree that if we are to allow European competition, we must also allow American competition, but why not leave that to the discretion of the regulator? It should decide whether there is a level playing field, by which I mean that a foreign takeover can be allowed here if we can take over interests in the country concerned. The process needs to be phased in when the regulator decides the time is right to avoid an immediate turmoil of takeovers.
  836
  Although I have other points to make, I finish by stressing that the Bill is important because we need to maintain British production, British quality, British regional services and British strength in television.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I served on the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee and, like other hon. Members who sat on it, pay tribute to the noble Lord Puttnam for the way in which he skilfully handled his chairmanship and brought us to a consensus on most issues. I might touch briefly on those aspects on which we were not of one mind.
  In the Committee's defence, I must tell the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) that we considered employment and training. He will note from paragraph 53 of the report that we felt constrained by the annex to the authorisation directive which does not permit a general condition of authorisation to be extended to employment and training in telecommunications. I say that to emphasise the detail with which we conducted our scrutiny.
  The Bill's principles will not encounter substantial opposition on Second Reading, with the exception of the Scottish and Welsh nationalists. It is important, however, that we discuss the first-order issues, not the second-order issues, before the Bill goes into Standing Committee. We need to consider what the Bill's principles are and what we are trying to achieve. If we are clear about that, it will help us tremendously when we consider the detail of this long and complicated Bill.
  It is interesting that light-touch regulation was at the forefront of the Secretary of State's presentation of the Bill when it was produced in draft form earlier in the year, because that is the dog that did not bark this evening, and rightly so. It is not a matter of the quantity of regulation that is imposed on any given industry, but a matter of the character of the regulation and what results it has. I am afraid that we do not get good regulation simply by having a lot of regulation that is accountable and transparent. We need to protect the necessary public interest. We also need the minimum amount of regulation so that we permit competition to succeed to the greatest possible extent.
  Although other hon. Members have mentioned broadband, I do not want to be diverted into a discussion on that. Indeed, the Bill is not intended to be a strategy for the roll-out of broadband. However, it is clear that whatever one might think about the relationship between Oftel and BT, it was only when BT cut prices that the extension of roll-out of broadband began. That may have happened in circumstances that did not lead to competition, but it demonstrates forcefully that ex-ante regulation—in this case in the form of 37 directions and determinations in the two years leading up to the time when prices were cut for wholesale broadband—does not deliver competitive outcomes and probably does not deliver the best outcome in terms of consumer benefits.
  Two themes run through the legislation, from telecommunications to broadcasting. It is important not to consider those sectors in isolation. The two themes are the necessity of increasing competition in communications markets if we are to succeed

  837
  internationally to a greater extent, and the protection of the interests of consumers and citizens. Those two things could easily have been at the forefront of the Bill in response to the scrutiny Committee's recommendations. We thought it necessary to further the interests of consumers wherever possible through competition, and to balance that with the interests of citizens. Those two interests expressly arise in relation to plurality and the media.
  The Government have chosen not to accept that recommendation. I hope that they will reconsider their decision, even at this late stage. It is a matter not just of clarifying duties, but of setting a hierarchy of duties. It is not simply a matter of handing over duties to Ofcom and telling it to decide how best to strike the balance in all circumstances; it is a matter of indicating Parliament's intention concerning those duties.
  If we legislate without giving primacy to issues such as competition in telecommunications, we will take a backward step. The Office of Telecommunications, in using its powers under the Telecommunications Act 1984, did not, until earlier this year, give primacy to competition. It is important to carry that primacy through into the way in which Ofcom does its job, just as competition has been important to the way in which Ofgem works and is increasingly built into the structure of our utilities regulation.
  There are other instances in which the Bill would be better if we thought strictly in terms of competition and citizenship. On media ownership, the Government have confused themselves because many of those who come to them, including many with vested interests, have said that they want certainty. They want some media ownership rules to rolled back and the burden of regulation to be reduced.
  There is something to be said for certainty; cross-media ownership rules, in particular, give some certainty, but it is only temporary. We know from many past experiences that the circumstances that give rise to such rules are likely to be rapidly overtaken, requiring further legislation. Whatever we think about those rules now will be undermined by the markets, sometimes very rapidly, so we should concentrate on competition. How can we future-proof the Bill? How can we make it endure in a form that drives towards competitive markets in areas including broadcasting and the media and at the same time protects the interests of the citizen? We cannot do that until we tackle the question of plurality, and of how the citizenship interest in plurality is to be protected.
  On the newspapers, it seems to me evident how we should approach that question. We have not had cross-media ownership rules for newspapers. We have effectively allowed the market to determine ownership within normal competition rules, which are now to be strengthened. Within that structure, we have established, and will re-establish in the Bill, special tests intended to govern plurality. Why is that not equally true for other forms of media ownership? Why do we not give equal protection to the rights of citizens?
  The Government should consider that, because we would establish a better long-term structure for the Bill if we swept away more of the media ownership rules.
  838
  The members of the scrutiny Committee were not of one mind on that, and I think that we should have gone further. However, we did agree that we wanted plurality. The Committee did not say that it wanted to restrict foreign ownership or to have tighter cross-media ownership rules. To paraphrase St. Augustine, it said, "Make me competitive, 0 Lord, but not yet"; we need however to include in the Bill a competition structure to take us into the future.
  I turn now to another area where competition may be important, the BBC, and some of my hon. Friends may have an opportunity to amplify this point. On the face of it, one would say that the BBC is not subject to competition, but it is subject to competition rules, and some Members who have contributed to the debate have asked how that works. In theory, if the BBC uses its licence fee money to buy public service broadcasting in a form that has anti-competitive affects, it can be subject to competition rules, and Ofcom should clearly apply those rules if necessary.
  The BBC is not, however, subject to competition in the use of the licence fee. We need to think forward to 2006 and charter renewal, and we need to include in the Bill a structure that will be sensitive to all the changes that may come with charter renewal, even up to and including the possibility of separating the BBC, as a provider of public service broadcasting, from the governors, as the custodians of the licence fee. As the Secretary of State said, the licence fee is venture capital for the nation's creativity. The nation's creativity is not confined to the BBC alone—that: is beyond the scope of the BBC—so BBC governors, who control the licence fee, should be able achieve such a separation.
  In conclusion, competition to deliver consumer benefits and protecting citizens' rights should be two threads that run right through the Bill. We can relate many issues to those goals with success.
  8.50 pm
  Paul Goggins: I do not mind admitting to being technically challenged by some aspects of this rather lengthy Bill. None the less, I join other hon. Members in welcoming it, and the pre-legislative scrutiny associated with it.
  First, I strongly welcome clause 256, which sets out the detail of the public service remit for TV broadcasting in the United Kingdom, including provision for education, entertainment, news, current affairs, children's interests and so on. In the modern world there are specialised channels for all those areas of interest, but it is important to have a balanced menu on our main TV channels. I particularly welcome the requirement to cover matters of international significance or interest.
  I have seen a worrying report from 3WE, a coalition of development agencies and international organisations, which demonstrates the dramatic reduction in such programmes in recent years. For example, the production of non-news factual programmes on international issues on our main channels fell from 1,037 hours in 1990 to 728 hours in 1999. Indeed, factual programmes on the developing world fell by 50 per cent. in the same period. That trend is ironic, given that globalisation emphasises every day the growing importance of the need for everyone to understand international issues, whether those involve

  839
  Iraq, Afghanistan, or the plight of the 14 million people in southern Africa who face famine. If we want people to understand and engage with those issues, it is essential that television provide them with the necessary background information and analysis. It is less than a week since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in the Chamber of his ambition to double global spending on development. A similar increase in the coverage of international affairs on our television screens would be encouraging.
  Secondly, I warmly welcome clause 254, which covers access radio. I was delighted when, in March 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), who was then a Minister, came to my constituency to announce the access radio pilot. Wythenshawe FM is now one of 16 pilot radio stations under the access scheme. Jason Kenyon, the station manager, leads a team of four staff and 70 volunteers, including schoolchildren, pensioners and many other people in the community. The station is now broadcasting seven days a week, from 7 o'clock in the morning to midnight. It is important to emphasise that access radio is not just about programmes for local audiences, but is also about engaging local people and securing their participation in the planning and presentation of programmes, as well as listening to them.
  Wythenshawe FM is already producing some interesting programmes. For example, "Family Action Benchill", a local voluntary organisation, has just started a series of programmes to highlight the problem of domestic violence. Chief Inspector Peter Aaronson from the local police force has a regular weekly slot in which he answers questions and updates people on the ways in which local police are trying to fight crime in the area. No radio station is complete without traffic and travel news. In Wythenshawe they are especially necessary because we have a complex road system and two motorways. Funds do not run to having an "eye in the sky", so on Wythenshawe FM it is "Bradley on the bridge". Bradley is the 12-year-old son of a volunteer presenter, Simon Delaney; he makes regular visits to the bridge over the M56 and rings back on his mobile phone to give an update on the traffic flow.
  I pay tribute to Wythenshawe FM's parent organisation, Radio Regen, which is based in Manchester. As the name suggests, for that organisation access radio is about regeneration and giving people confidence and skills. It therefore provides a great deal of training, not only in radio production but in marketing and business skills.
  There are three significant challenges for access radio. The first is the need to emphasise the local dimension. Clause 302 gives Ofcom a duty to safeguard the local content and character of local sound broadcasting. The debate has made it clear that some people are not so enthusiastic about local content and character. It is vital that the Government and Ofcom resist any attempts to dilute that important dimension of the Bill and the accompanying guidance.
  Secondly, frequencies have been discussed. There is limited wavelength capacity, and it is vital that access radio get its fair share. The hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said that the BEIC could help, and I agree. If, for example, Radio 2 broadcasts in Manchester on 89.9,
  840
  why can the BBC not release 90.7 for local access radio in the city? It is not good enough to say that that might interfere with Radio 2 in, say, Southampton. It should be technically possible to implement my suggestion, and I encourage the BBC, Ofcom and access radio to get together to try to find a way forward.
  Thirdly, let us consider funding. I welcome the power in the Bill that enables Ofcom to give grants to access radio. Some people argue for wider funding streams for community media. In addition, access radio will get money for training and it will want to draw in funds from sponsorship.
  I understand the dangers and difficulties of over-commercialisation for access radio. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) mentioned the possible destabilising effect on local commercial stations. However, if Manchester airport wanted to sponsor a programme on Wythenshawe FM about attracting people to work at the airport, who could lose? Local people would get jobs, the airport would be happy, and another funding stream would be available for Wythenshawe FM. Such sponsorship can only be good.
  I am delighted by the progress of access radio pilots, especially that of Wythenshawe FM. I look forward to the rest of the Bill's passage through the House.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I shall continue with the theme of access radio. There is an anomaly in my area of Somerset that the Bill does not tackle. Our local BBC station, Somerset Sound, is on medium wave; we have no FM frequency in Somerset for the BBC. That is bizarre, because long before I became a Member of Parliament, my predecessor Lord King tried to get an FM channel. If communications are to move into the 21st century, we should be able to get FM frequencies on all BBC stations throughout the United Kingdom. It is anomalous that Somerset cannot get it. We have no chance of doing so, because we have been given a new AM frequency to keep us off the FM band.
  Access radio could cause many problems in my constituency. We have two small radio stations. One is based in an area that covers only 10,000 people, and the other in an area that covers approximately 30,000. The Radio Authority's licences serve most communities of fewer than 300,000 people, a third of communities with fewer than 200,000 people and a fifth of communities with fewer than 100,000 people. That gives hon. Members some idea of the small size of the radio stations in my area. If, under the Bill, there can be three stations in an area, the number would have to be subdivided twice in Exmoor. We would end up with approximately 3,500 people per station. That is blatantly ridiculous.
  By and large the stations work from hand to mouth, because we have no large business community to bring in an enormous amount of revenue. If that is the case in the longer term, we need to create either more business—that would bring problems—or a bigger area. We would then hit another anomaly.
  We are in part of a national park. The national parks are happy to allow people in, but anyone who tries to put up a radio transmitter will not be allowed to do so. We therefore have a radio station that has been given a

  841
  licence by the Radio Authority but can only hit about one third of its total area. It is meant to cover most of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook), but it cannot do so because of that anomaly.
  I hope that the Government will look at the Bill to see whether national parks could be asked—not compelled—to be more, shall we say, congenial towards the placing of radio transmitters, so that local radio can be accessed across the large areas that cannot receive it at the moment. We receive a wonderful programme from Wales—I cannot understand anything it says—but we cannot get our local FM station. Perhaps we need a Welshman on the board—but perhaps that would not really help us on Exmoor. If we had a station that we could listen to, it would be helpful.
  Bridgwater, at the other end of my constituency, with 30,000 people, has just got its own radio station: BCR FM—Bridgwater Community Radio Ltd., or whatever it is called. It is just starting out, and its representatives are very worried about access radio. Both its presenters came to see me and told me what they were forecasting, and hoped to achieve, for the next five years. They are earning below the minimum wage to try to keep the station on the air. They are happy to do that; it is what they set out to do, and they are achieving it.
  If we were to set up another station, sponsored by the BBC, the licence payer, individual businesses, newspapers or a bigger channel such as Carlton West Country, which covers my area, that would unfairly penalise a local radio station such as BCR, which could not compete. That would put an enormous number of businesses out of business, and I strongly believe that that would be unfair. If the Radio Authority grants a licence to a radio station, that licence is there to be utilised by that company. If it is then effectively taken away by giving another two radio stations, including a BBC channel on medium wave, to an area that cannot sustain them, the system will be impossible to sustain from start to finish. There are some large anomalies in Bills such as this, but if we do not consider them in the context of the highlands and islands, for example, or rural Somerset, we shall probably miss out.
  As for broadband, I asked BT for a map of my constituency showing the exchanges that were switched on. I found one exchange, which covers Bridgwater—my biggest town—but then I looked further across the map. I have a big constituency; it stretches for 57 miles. BT cannot physically switch some of the exchanges on to broadband because they are so archaic. I asked BT how much it would cost, and was told: "A quarter of a million a shot." I asked how many people would have to sign up, and was told about 500. When I asked whether BT was sure about that, I was told, "No, it's about 700, but we need 500 who will definitely sign up before we switch you on. Oh, and by the way, we won't do it anyway, because you're too far up the line."
  The whole idea is that we are trying to encourage business to come into Exmoor—we heard earlier about a potential change in legislation in that regard—yet we cannot get broadband. Would the national park allow satellite dishes to be installed to pick up broadband via satellite? I doubt it. Would it be happy for us to go and dig everything up, as we always do in Britain—we seem
  842
  to be great at digging up roads? No, it would not like that. Again, therefore, there is an anomaly concerning how we should bring broadband into an area of high rural dependency.
  Minehead, my other town, has 10,000 people, quite a lot of small businesses—and I mean small—and a busy tourist trade. It has the biggest Butlin's in the country. I spoke to representatives of a company in the town, and they would love to have broadband. [Interruption.] I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) is going to intervene on me to talk about Butlin's in a minute. Broadband cannot be installed at Butlin's because BT cannot enable the exchange. Butlin's has said that it would like to do something about that, but it cannot, because BT will not let it. BT has said, very kindly and magnanimously, that it will compile a report on how long the operation would take in my constituency, and how many potential consumers it would require before it was able to switch on the supply. I am still waiting for that report.
  I broadly welcome the Bill, but if it is to be acceptable across the whole country it must be fair, to start with. If we introduce a Bill that does not provide a level playing field from the start, we will never catch up, because when it is implemented, certain areas will not be able to go on to the next stage—in relation to new FM channels, or whatever—because they did not get adequate provision in the first place.
  I know that the BBC would love to have an FM channel, but it cannot get one at the moment, although we do not know why. I have asked the BBC up here, but I have never had an answer. Perhaps the Minister will slip in an amendment on that—I do not know—but it would be nice to be able to go down that road. If we do not provide that ability, we shall cut off another section of our community.
  There is definitely a place for access radio, but that place is in larger conurbations, not small rural areas. If we lose what we have we shall not get it back. We cannot sustain too many radio stations simply because we do not have the revenue or the support—unless those come from the public purse, which would probably mean shutting down the smaller ones in the first place. I support the Bill, but I hope that those little anomalies are studied carefully. If they are, I am sure that they will be resolved long before the legislation reaches the statute book.
  9.5 pm
  Rosemary McKenna: Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am surprised to be called at long last.
  Like many of my colleagues, I am interested in communications and how we feed information to and get it from our constituents. What politician is not fascinated by the political media? However, I am also interested because I have lived through a time in which communication has evolved from print and radio to live satellite broadcasting from the other side of the world. I remember my mother hauling me away from the radio when I was a small child, as I had to do my homework. I contrast that experience with standing in Glasgow airport lounge and watching live on television the second plane as it flew into the twin towers. So much has happened in that short period, and the changes in communication are enormous.

  843
  Those of us with an interest in the Bill have just about disappeared under a mountain of paper, which is interesting as it is about electronics and modern communications. Although our preparations for the debate involved receiving a huge amount of paper, I shall make only a few general remarks before concentrating on this country's music business, which I think is important, although it has not had much coverage.
  I am delighted that the Department has taken on board a great deal of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's inquiry and the Joint Committee's deliberations. Ministers have shown their ability to listen, and I am sure that they will continue to do so as the Bill progresses through the House. The pre-legislative scrutiny has set a good example for all other Bills.
  On regulation of the BBC, the Bill has achieved the right balance. I put on record my support for the BBC: it is not perfect, but the standards that it sets are a benchmark for high quality broadcasting throughout the world. We underestimate at our peril the importance of news and information provided by the BBC to people all over the world. While it might be good sport for some to knock the BBC, I believe that we should cherish it. We should criticise it when necessary, but we should also value it as one of the best examples of broadcasting in the world. The Secretary of State made the right decision in putting the BBC within Ofcom's remit under tiers 1 and 2 only.
  May I speak about the importance of television and radio to the music industry? I am a member of the all-party music group, but I am just beginning to come to terms with and understand the scale of the industry in this country. It is a huge contributor to Britain's economy. Most people are aware of what they see on television—the few people who make a fortune from the music business—but that is far from a true picture, and behind it all a huge number of people, such as the creators of music and the producers, do not earn a fortune. They work hard in an industry that is of great benefit to the country.
  That benefit is not translated into huge financial rewards for the thousands of people behind the cultural and economic success of an industry that has been a world leader for the past four decades.
  The success of individuals and companies depends very much on opportunities for the creation of music, and also for the broadcasting of music by both national and regional radio and television. The success of Britain's broadcasting industry is inextricably linked to its relationship with the British music industry. It is worrying, therefore, that many local radio stations play the same music all day every day. Modern music must be given a hearing, but not to the exclusion of everything else.
  Under the current proposals, Ofcom has a general duty to protect the local content and character of the news and programmes on local radio and television, and I think that that should be extended to music. At present the Bill contains no local requirement relating to music. BBC Scotland and Radio Clyde 1 and 2 are superb examples of local radio stations, and I am sure that many of my colleagues can cite other examples. The newer local stations, however, tend to transmit the same kind of music, mostly pop.
  844
  I enjoy all kinds of music. I enjoy listening to pop music as much as anyone else. But I fear that in creating more local radio stations, we may fail to encourage the promotion of local creative talent and respond to local tastes. I hope the Minister will confirm that the award of licences, and licence review, will depend on licensees meeting a requirement to broadcast music that caters for a range of tastes and interests and matches local audience needs. How would such a requirement be monitored, and how would it be enforced?
  Pete Wishart: I find myself in the curious position of agreeing with almost every word that the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that the best way of achieving what she wants would be to include a "creator" on the content panel—someone involved in the music industry, who would know what it represents, what it is worth and what it contributes?
  Rosemary McKenna: Indeed. I recently met Feargal Sharkey. Let me explain, for the benefit of those who do not know, that he was a great entertainer and is a creator of music. He is a member of the Radio Authority, by appointment, and makes a great contribution. Such expertise should indeed be represented on the panel.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I think the Dept has done a wonderful job in terms of pre-legislative scrutiny, and I look forward to participating in the Bill's later stages.
  9.13 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna). I am not convinced that the Bill is perfect, however: that is one reason why it must have a Committee stage. It needs fine-tuning. Issues have already been raised that demonstrate the need for detailed examination.
  I intervened earlier on the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that the M25 should take us out into civilization. There seems to be an unwillingness to think beyond the M25, and to conceive of creative genius elsewhere.
  The Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television has made that point. It is looking for encouragement for creative producers throughout the United Kingdom. I also welcomed the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about curbing pornography on the internet.
  The Northern Ireland Advisory Committee on Telecommunications is concerned about these matters. Interestingly, to judge by their comments, certain Members from Wales and Scotland—and others—do not seem to think that there is another, remote part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is the only part with a land frontier, which adds to the difficulties. Both the Committee and I sympathise with the concept of having one representative for the three regions, rather than one for each region, in order to provide an understanding of what is going on. Given that representation on the Committee has increased from six to nine, that would not pose a tremendous challenge. The three regions represent 16 per cent. of the United Kingdom, population and it should be possible to find

  845
  one person with the calibre and expertise to represent those regions, as well as dealing with such issues for the nation as a whole.
  So far as Northern Ireland and certain other parts of the United Kingdom are concerned, some regulation is needed, because not every region is equally far advanced in terms of competitive communications. It is therefore necessary to provide some regulation; otherwise, the fear is that Northern Ireland will be left behind if it is not effectively and properly funded through regional representation. I welcome the suggestion that the consumer panel and the content board should include representatives from the regions, so that they might make a contribution.
  Ours is a relatively small region. However, in dealing with some of the problems, and in listening to discussions on broadband, I have been fascinated to discover that, although we have a good fibre-optic network, we have not yet completed the linking of such communications. I have heard it said that the challenge of broadband can still be met through smaller groupings, and some people are already advancing broadband in rural areas and small communities. As has been pointed out, the tragedy is that, in some areas, even British Telecom has not established the modern communications that would help the development of broadband.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the relevant expertise exists, if the Government really intend that every part of the United Kingdom should have access to broadband, they should make some financial commitment to bring about such access?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I think the people of Northern Ireland would be happier if the Secretary of State, rather than Ofcom, dealt with that issue, because they are frightened by what has happened in the past.
  John Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sorry but I cannot. I would love to give way to the hon. Gentleman because I have appreciated his practical contributions, but with the limited time at my disposal I want to move from Northern Ireland and the general discussion to an issue that has yet to be covered properly in this debate.
  I remind the House that, before publication of this Bill, the Northern Ireland Assembly voted unanimously to call on the Government to permit the broadcasting of Christian radio, including Christian music. Such music cannot be broadcast throughout the nation, because of the restrictions that have been imposed. The general public in Northern Ireland support such a move, and many Members of this House have received letters on the matter. I believe that, on one occasion, 16,000 such letters were sent to Downing street.
  I welcome many aspects of the Bill relating to the development of the communications sector, but clause 335 is difficult to understand. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) said that he finds it
  846
  difficult to understand Welsh, but I am sure that there are those who find it difficult to understand the English in clause 335. It is hardly written in simple English.
  Clause 335 lifts some restrictions, for example on local and national digital programme services, but it contains religious disqualifications, as set out in part 2 of schedule 2 of the 1990 Act. They are applied, for example, to local and national digital radio and television multiplexes.
  Many issues could be raised in the debate, but I am concerned with the effect on organisations and companies with religious affiliations. Christian broadcasting companies in the industry have suffered from being classified as disqualified persons, and have been prevented from developing and competing in the market place. Although one might not support such organisations, or not like religion at all, or not choose to watch or listen to items that might be produced, that is no reason for disqualification. There are many channels to which I never listen, but I would not deny their right to apply to broadcast.
  Andrew Selous: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill still leaves officers of religious bodies and convicted criminals the only people unable to operate a licence? Will not the Bill mean that the UK remains the only country in Europe to suffer that discrimination in respect of religious broadcasters?
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is fascinating that we permit doubtful programmes to be broadcast and thus corrupt the nation, yet are more worried about programmes that might help the nation, Interestingly, the Government have approached faith bodies to help them deal with communities, yet are not prepared to allow those bodies to broadcast.
  Earlier, the Secretary of State said that clause 309, relating to advertising, was not compatible with section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, I wonder whether she had overlooked outstanding application 11072/02 before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg when she said that she was unaware of any impediment other than a political one. When the Minister winds up, will he state clearly whether, in the light of that outstanding application, clause 335 is compatible with the European convention?
  The Puttnam committee noted that a case had been lodged at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. My information is that the court has given the application the case number to which I have referred already, in the name of the Centre for Justice and Liberty v. the United Kingdom. The Government should be aware of that from consultations and documents.
  Jesus Christ taught that we should love our neighbour, pray for those in authority and forgive those who have offended us. I believe that the heritage of freedom and tolerance for other people's beliefs that has been won at great cost for this nation over the years still has a place in this now liberal society, alongside other views. I ask that the House consider removing the religious disqualification measures in clause 335. To highlight that, and the need to take consideration of Northern Ireland, we will support the relevant amendment.
  9.23 pm
  Paul Farrelly: In view of the time, I shall shorten my remarks, but I hope that Government and Opposition Front-Bench Members will bear with me, as they took well over an hour to present their opening statements.
  I also had the pleasure to serve on the Joint Committee with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley). It is always a pleasure to listen to him. Given the spirit of the debate, I do not think that it will harm his promotion prospects if I say that on some of the more controversial issues he was closer to the Government line than some Labour Members.
  The Government should be congratulated on opening the draft Bill up to pre-legislative scrutiny. To their credit, they have accepted some major changes of policy as well as some drafting points. On content, for instance, they have accepted that Ofcom should be able to intervene to specify levels of original TV product ion at peak viewing times.
  Clearly, in view of the Bill's deregulatory intent, safeguards for UK content and production are vital. I hope that the Government will go further in future amendments. We have, for instance, a thriving independent sector, producing and exporting everything from such hits as "Bob the Builder" to serious drama. These are creative national champions, writ small individually, but collectively the potential is huge. In the face of a powerful BBC and ever-increasing concentration of ownership in ITV, the sector needs all the help at home it can get.
  In its recent report, the ITC reinforced the Committees concerns about the operation of the independent supply market. It suggested a code of practice; we suggested an urgent review by Ofcom. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I hope that the Government will look favourably at the thrust of those recommendations. Indeed, I hope that they will go further still. Independents have clearly benefited from quotas, but the evidence shows, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) pointed out, that they act as ceilings, not floors, and are adhered to grudgingly. We know that 25 per cent. by hours is a world away from 25 per cent. by programme value.
  The ITC's expert panel recently recommended that value should be part of the quota. The main ITC report said that Ofcom should have the power to look at this, and so did we on the Joint Committee. I hope that the Government will accept that. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has set a precedent in this respect with BBC3.
  A second area in which the Government have changed their policy is on religious broadcasting. Indeed, I suspect that there is no other area on which we have been lobbied more religiously during this process. With the number of digital licences on offer, I think that the Government have got the balance right.
  There are major areas of policy disagreement between the Joint Committee and the Government. I should like to say a few words on two in particular—major newspaper groups owning Channel Five and non-EEC
  848
  ownership of ITV. When we called for evidence to back up the Government's bold assertions, we found that evidence to be sadly wanting. More than that, we found grave and widespread reservations, which is why we recommended keeping the restrictions until Ofcom had had the chance to review the issue within three years. What is the hurry? Why set up a powerful new regulator, a fount of all knowledge, only to plough up the playing field before it is even up and running?
  As far as cross-media ownership and Channel Five is concerned, that has become known as the Murdoch clause, but it is wrong to personalise the issue. It is not about one media mogul of shifting nationality but the desirability of anyone—right, left or the North Korean Politburo—owning 36 per cent. of the national newspaper market, plus the dominant satellite provider, concentrating ownership even further in their hands by owning a significant terrestrial broadcaster. The Government have recognised the force of that important principle by retaining the ban on ownership of ITV after all.
  The Government have also made much of the fact that under current rules Silvio Berlusconi, of all people, could buy Channel Five. That is a red herring, because unlike News International or the Daily Mail and General Trust, Silvio Berlusconi does not own a substantial UK newspaper group. What is at issue is the desirability of one person or group's world view or prejudices holding an ever greater sway over a UK audience. The same could be said for relaxing cross-media ownership with respect to radio and local newspapers. I agree with the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that Members of Parliament, above all, should want to get the definition of three distinct local media voices right. Local should mean local, certainly not regional or national.
  On non-EEC ownership of UK television, the major concerns lie with the potential effects of the takeover of ITV or Channel Five by major US media concerns. We heard no evidence that that would lead to a huge inward boost to our television industry, apart from snapping up shares on the stock market. Rather, we heard the opposite—the concern was that it would lead to reduced investment as US groups substituted local production for their own. If the Government are determined to go down that route, strengthening the safeguards of the content is vital.
  Because of the merger of ITV companies, regional production outside London has already been decimated. What are the prospects if ITV is controlled from Miami or Hollywood?
  The recent ITC report made further recommendations regarding clear and enforceable commitments for investment and production outside London. I hope that as we go through the Bill, the Government will act on these concerns as well. What is the rush on deregulation? Let us be calm; let us be considered. Let us set up Ofcom and let it examine all these important issues carefully.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Roger Williams: The Bill has much support in the House, although reservations have been expressed by Members who represent constituencies on the margins of the country

  849
  and in the countryside itself, in areas where communications have not yet developed to their full potential. Some Members are concerned that we are making changes at a time when our constituents are excluded from benefits enjoyed by people living in more urban areas.
  In my constituency, for example, we do not even have full coverage for mobile telephones. As a result, the first responder initiative, whereby volunteers give help when people suffer a heart attack, cannot be spread across the whole area because there are not enough masts.
  In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we are concerned that the representation that we enjoyed by right under the old system will be taken away from us. We have no certainty that we shall have representation on the main board of Ofcom. Many problems could be resolved if the Bill included a provision that the Secretary of State had a statutory responsibility to consult the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly on appointments to the board.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) suggested that Ofcom should have a duty to set up consultative bodies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would give people in those countries confidence that their special problems would be addressed and resolved.
  Concerns have been expressed about the Welsh language in Wales and the role of S4C, our television channel, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary. S4C has a hugely successful output of programmes, but its financial situation remains tenuous. The company welcomes some of the Bill's provisions, although there are also some reservations. I hope that they can be dealt with in Committee and resolved by Ministers.
  9.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: At this stage of our proceedings, it is often said that we have had a good debate. Having sat through almost all of it, I can say that it has been genuinely well informed. We have heard speeches in which Members expressed a range of views and reflected their knowledge and experience.
  The debate has been interesting—as the Committee, too, will be interesting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) pointed out, the Bill is a leviathan: 395 clauses and 19 schedules. I pay tribute to anyone who has tried to read the whole thing in one go, because it is hard going.
  The Joint Committee made 148 recommendations and the Government accepted 120. I am sure that we all agree that the work of the Joint Committee on the draft Bill was extremely valuable. We have heard from several of its members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), and we have benefited from that. The Government were wise to set up that Joint Committee.
  As we proceed to the Standing Committee, I suspect that the Government will propose yet more amendments—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is possible. I was told this morning that the team working on the Bill was happy and did not expect to table amendments.
  850
  However, I am willing to make a small wager with anyone in the Chamber that the number of Government amendments will reach three figures before the Bill is enacted.
  I was surprised to hear the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry say that we needed little more scrutiny. This is an enormous Bill and it is important that the House and its Committees take a proper look at what will be extremely important legislation. Indeed, when we have explanatory notes that run to 268 pages, which is longer than most novels, we know that this is a complicated Bill. It is hugely complex and very technical.
  I should like to highlight some issues. I wrote this little speech before the debate, so I am interested to note that several hon. Members have mentioned these subjects. First, I want to discuss the position of the BBC. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that it is not logical that the BBC should not be entirely subject to Ofcom. We shall certainly want to examine the reasoning behind that in Committee. We shall also wish to examine broadband access, which has been mentioned by hon. Members, especially those representing more distant parts of the United Kingdom. The lack of access to a speedy internet connection may be a major barrier to company growth, economic growth and, indeed, prosperity in future.
  We should like to look at the scrutiny of Ofcom itself, and how it should report to Parliament. It should report to Parliament and its decisions should be scrutinised by Parliament. We are interested in the appointments to Ofcom. I wish to make no comment on Lord Currie, whom I do not know, except to quote from The Guardian—hardly my favourite reading. Its headline on 25 July was, "The lord Labour loves". The article said:
  "Broadcasters"—
  a big word for the Chairman of the Select Committee, I know—
  "will be hoping today that, as a long-term Labour supporter and a handy cellist, David Currie's repertoire extends beyond simply playing the Governments tune … A glance at his curriculum vitae suggests that before Lord Currie … gets on with his role as one of the country's most important watchdogs, the quietly influential Labour peer will first have to prove he is not just another member of the party's north London intellectual clique being handed a cushy job."
  I believe that Lord Currie has a very good reputation, and I have no personal criticism of him whatsoever, but I consider it a very great pity that so many key appointments in the Government's gift go to known Government supporters. It is no surprise that there is an issue of Tony's cronies, in which connection we might just mention the BBC, where the chairman, the director-general and the political editor are all known Government supporters. This is a very serious issue about impartiality, but Labour Members just sit there and laugh.
  Mr. Joyce: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman recalls this, but the chair of the BBC under the last Conservative Administration was the brother-in-law of the then Cabinet Minister responsible for the BBC.
  Mr. Robathan: Of course I do. I also recall that the former director-general, Lord Birt, now works for the

  851
  Prime Minister in a very close capacity, so I think that shows that we were genuinely impartial. [Interruption.] The cheap seats are a little rowdy as we discuss broadcasting and media.
  I should like to turn to a few of the comments that have been made. The Secretary of State spoke of the Bill's economic importance and of its values. She said that it covers every one of the Government's wider aspirations for Britain. That was rather over-stating the case, if I may say so. She said that these were ambitious aims, as the Bill was ambitious. Well, I think that these are ambitious claims for the Bill because I do not think that the Government can claim the credit for everything in it. I suggest that it will be private companies and private enterprise and innovation that will bring the benefits, not the Bill itself. The Bill should set up the structure and allow others to get on and deliver.
  Mr. Wyatt: That is what government is for.
  Mr. Robathan: Indeed, but obviously the hon. Gentleman should pay attention and read in Hansard what the Secretary of State claimed.
  I was glad that the Minister mentioned the licence fee, about which we may have something to say in Committee. We shall discuss the human rights issues, which she mentioned, especially those affecting religious broadcasters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) made an excellent speech. He raised many issues in detail, particularly religious broadcasting and cross-media ownership. I was particularly interested that he reminded us of the comments that the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), now the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, made during the passage of the Broadcasting Act 1996, because although I was there I had forgotten them. I look forward to hearing him explain how he has managed to change his position by 180 degrees.
  My hon. Friend also discussed newspaper ownership and referred to the statutory regulation of newspapers through the back door.
  The right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) brought his own expertise to the debate. That was particularly useful, but I think he was wrong about the Government sacking the BBC's governors. He wants the BBC to be properly regulated, as we do, under tier 3 by Ofcom, but I do not think that the Secretary of State can sack the governors. He referred to that as the nuclear option, but I doubt whether she can sack them—perhaps she can, and perhaps the Minister will mention that as well. He also mentioned piracy—a very important issue—and suggested that Ofcom should have responsibility for it, which is in interesting idea.
  I wanted to say that the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, sat on the fence and agreed with both sides at once, but he actually made some good points: he agreed with us, for example, about religious broadcasting and broadband services. I look forward to hearing his very long and fascinating contributions in Committee.
  852
  I shall just skip through a few other hon. Members and refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), whom I trust I can look forward to seeing on the Committee. He took us back to the Maastricht treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford voted against Maastricht treaty Bill on Third Reading. I am not sure that we want to dwell on that, but he was very sensible about the BBC not being seen to be properly regulated and being its own judge and jury.
  The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who also served on the Joint Committee, made some very sensible points about the BBC. I was interested to hear how we control pornographic spam. I am not entirely sure about the software to which he referred, but he revealed a depth of knowledge, some experience—[Interruption]—not of pornography but from his past as well as the Joint Committee and some thoughtful ideas. I should like to see him on the Committee, but I am afraid to say that with his knowledge, experience and sensible ideas there is absolutely no chance of that happening.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) particularly wanted me to refer to him because he made both the points that I made earlier, and I agree with him. Of course he is absolutely right to point out that there will be a tremendous failure of scrutiny in Committee because the debates will be guillotined.
  The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): Ochil is not pronounced like that.
  Mr. Robathan: I am sorry. We have the Communications Bill so that we can communicate better across the border. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on one or two things, but it was nice to know that a Labour Member of Parliament is still allowed to refer to Lenin. [Interruption.] I think that it was Lenin, not Lennon.
  The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), who spoke for the Welsh nationalists, and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) referred to the importance of broadband services. That reinforces exactly what we are saying—broadband must be mentioned.
  Although I was absent at the time, I have a note from my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who sat in for me, to the effect that Lord Thurso—my apologises, Madam Deputy Speaker; the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)—said that a lot of people fishing on his river in Caithness will not be able to get digital television. He raised a very important point about the analogue switch-off.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who, I hope, will serve on the Standing Committee, has a tremendous contribution to make. He gave a thoughtful, well informed and incisive speech, particularly about Ofcom's priorities in relation to competition and protecting the interests of consumers and citizens.

  853
  Lastly, I should like to refer to the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), who honestly admitted to feeling technically challenged when studying the tome that is the Communications Bill, and I suspect that many hon. Members will have felt the same. That is certainly not unique, but I suggest that he should study more, rather than listening so much to Wythenshawe FM, to which he referred at length.
  In conclusion, my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford and I served on the Committee that considered the Broadcasting Bill in 1996, as indeed did the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness, who is about to reply to the debate.
  I sat in silence throughout the Bill, as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of National Heritage. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford sat as a Parliamentary Private Secretary, but, halfway through, rebelled against the Conservative Government and resigned his position. Six years on, we look forward to revisiting the issues in Committee, and to giving this very important Bill as much detailed scrutiny as the guillotine will allow. I doubt whether all 395 clauses and 19 schedules will be examined, which is a matter of regret. I hope that there will be a spirit of co-operation, however, as we do not disagree with the principles of the Bill. I hope that we will try to achieve the best possible result for all those who are involved in, or who are consumers of, broadcasting and communications in this country.
  9.45 pm
  The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness (Mr. Stephen Timms): Early in the new year, the first third-generation mobile services will become available in the UK. Users will be able, at any time, to download the latest television news bulletin and watch it on their mobile handset. Will that be a case of broadcasting or telecommunications? My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) quoted another example of the traditional distinctions and boundaries between the different domains becoming increasingly hard to maintain. Higher capabilities of mobiles, rapid take-up of broadband, growing use of wireless for fixed communications and the spread of digital television are all blurring the old distinctions. Bringing the regulators together is, therefore, clearly the right action. I welcome the support for that change that has been expressed on both sides of the House, and outside the House, too.
  Brian White: Technology is undoubtedly converging. The uses to which people put that technology, however, are not necessarily converging. Will my hon. Friend address that point?
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. What is important, however, is that those who make the judgments about how these matters should be regulated will be in one place rather than in different institutions. Increasingly, more than one of those regulators has had to get involved in a particular case. Ofcom will be the place where these decisions are made, which is clearly a big improvement.
  David Taylor: The Minister referred to the blurred domain boundaries and Ofcom's role. Does he accept that the clause covering Ofcom's duty to ensure reasonable regional coverage is not strong enough in areas such as mine, which is close to the west midlands and east midlands regional boundaries? Because of topographical features, we are not able to receive east midlands television, for instance, in any form. The people of Ashby, Coalville and Whitwick want to hear about their own communities, and not about Aldridge, Cannock and Walsall, wonderful though those communities are.
  Mr. Timms: I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents will be pleased by what he says on their behalf.
  The recent Booz Allen Hamilton benchmarking study rated the UK as the second-best environment for electronic commerce among all the major economies after the United States. That is a good position for us, but we want to do better. A world-leading regulatory regime is an important step in that direction. We are seeing rapid development in the UK. As well as the imminent launch of third-generation mobile services, broadband connections passed the 1 million mark two months ago. They are available to about two thirds of households around the country, and that number is increasing by about 30,000 every week. The penetration of digital television is higher in the UK than anywhere else in the world. We are addressing the challenge of broadband content, as well as network infrastructure, including music, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Rosemary McKenna) pointed out. We are looking at encouraging new content and new applications through the research and development tax credit, business support schemes and embedding broadband in the modernisation of public services.
  The Bill requires Ofcom, in performing its duties, to have regard both to the promotion of competition and the encouragement of investment and innovation. In developing the new networks, competition is key. There is sharp competition in the broadband market between services based on telephony and on cable television networks, with cable television having the larger share at the moment, and strong retail competition between BT and the large number of other service providers reselling its wholesale ADSL product.
  Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Timms: Not at the moment.
  The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) was right to emphasise the fact that we need more competition to deliver the innovation in technology and marketing that alone can drive the extra functionality and the wider availability of the services that people demand into every part of the UK. Ofcom will need to ensure that new entrants and innovative players have a fair chance to offer their products and services so as to boost the competitiveness of the UK economy. Our communications infrastructure has long been one of the strengths underpinning our success in inward investment.
  Sir Robert Smith: I am just a bit concerned. The Minister said that competition would drive these services into every part of the UK. Does he really believe that rural areas and the further-flung parts of the UK will receive these services as a result of competition? Will there have to be another route?
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman should consider the example of mobile phones. Exactly the same concerns about the provision of services in rural areas were raised. The competition between the service providers led to innovation in marketing and technology that drove the services into those areas. It is also the case that public services in all parts of the country will demand broadband. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the commitment the week before last that, by 2006, every school in the country will have broadband. Once the school in an area has broadband, it is possible for the service to be provided to other users as well. However, we need new investment as well as competition.
  Michael Fabricant: Before the Minister starts believing his own propaganda, will he accept that the penetration of broadband in the UK is far less than in other parts of Europe, let alone the United States? Does he also realise that what he calls broadband—512 kilobytes per second—is far lower than the general definition of broadband, which is 1.5 megabytes? Basically, the Government have a lot further to go.
  Mr. Timms: It is the case that the UK made a slow start with broadband but it is equally the case that we are catching up very rapidly. Some 30,000 new connections are made each week, and the rate of growth is significantly faster than elsewhere in Europe. We can look forward with a good deal of confidence to having the extensive as well as highly competitive broad band market in the UK that we most certainly need.
  Mr. Robathan: I live only one and a half hours' drive from London. Lutterworth is a large town, but we cannot get broadband there or almost anywhere in my constituency.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that BT announced at the e-summit a couple of weeks ago that it would achieve 80 per cent. availability of broadband right across the country by 2005. He also needs to take account of the potential for wireless to deliver broadband services, particularly in rural areas. That will be another element of competition that holds out much promise for driving these services into areas where they are not available at the moment. It is important that we do that.
  We need new investment. Players in the capital market need now to reassess their caution about the technology sector, particularly in the UK where economic stability provides such a strong foundation. Technological change is creating a vast array of new commercially attractive opportunities. We need investment on a substantial scale to come forward for those opportunities to be realised.
  856
  The Bill will help to make that easier. For example, it will enable Ofcom to designate people other than network operators, such as a local authority, to hold the powers necessary for infrastructure construction so helping to facilitate infrastructure sharing and to reduce the cost of rolling out new networks. Members may well be interested in clause 144, which restates the power for a local authority to provide a public network as originally set out in the Telegraph Act 1899. That may have new relevance in the digital era.
  Let me comment on several of the major points that have been raised in the debate. I very much welcome the broad agreement across the House on some of the key issues, including some of those that have been hotly debated over the past year or so. Questions were raised about ITV news. When 59 per cent. of people consider television to be their most trustworthy source of information, it is vital that, as the main competitor to BBC news, ITV news should be impartial, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) pointed out, independent and of high quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) said, it should deal with international, as well as national, matters. That is why we are retaining the current nominated news provider system for ITV as a guarantor of quality and independence.
  A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale), said that we need to go further. The Bill raises the ownership limit from 20 to 40 per cent. to help to make strategic decision making and investment easier. We will be able to change the system in the future, without further legislation, if the market can provide an adequate range of high-quality easily accessible television news services without those requirements.
  The BBC's relationship with Ofcom has been a prominent theme. It was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who welcomed the Bill in its current form. The BBC will be regulated by Ofcom for tier 1 and tier 2 obligations. We have agreed, after careful consideration of the recommendation by the Joint Committee, that Ofcom should have the power to fine the BBC for breaches of those obligations. Tier 3, for which the governors will be responsible, requires the BBC to publish an annual statement of programme policy, to report on its performance on that policy and to consider relevant Ofcom guidance. We aim to ensure that the BBC maintains its independence. We want a regulatory regime that recognises its distinctive character through the charter, the agreement and its relationship with Parliament, while bringing it within the overall regulatory structure. I believe that our proposals will have that effect.
  Effective reflection of the interests of all parts of the UK is important. That idea featured prominently in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) among others. We have included provisions to ensure that the interests of nations and regions are represented on Ofcom. The board needs to remain small enough to react quickly to fast-changing circumstances. Adding members on the basis that they

  857
  are from different nations and regions would jeopardise that, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said.
  Mr. Mullin: Can my hon. Friend explain how it is possible to justify a relaxation of the rules on cross-media ownership to allow someone who already owns four national newspapers and one television channel to buy Channel Five?
  Mr. Timms: The general approach in the Bill is to remove unnecessary restrictions. We are permitting some consolidation in ITV because of its size and reach, but Channel Five is small. It has a 6 per cent. market share compared with 24 per cent. for ITV and only 80 per cent. coverage. So it makes sense to remove the ownership restrictions in that case. Of course, if the audience grows, the Secretary of State could make changes, perhaps to require a nominated news provider system, as with ITV. We have established the right balance, which is reflected in the Bill.
  Huw Irranca-Davies rose—
  Michael Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Timms: I am afraid that I need to press on.
  The content board of Ofcom will have designated members representing Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England, as will the consumer panel. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) was right to emphasise the importance of a robust consumer panel. The Bill requires Ofcom to establish and maintain offices in each country. A memorandum of understanding between Ofcom and the relevant Secretary of State could well include other measures, such as those mentioned by hon. Members.
  The hon. Members for Maldon and East Chelmsford and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) referred to religious ownership. It is worth explaining that the restrictions were placed on the statute book by the Conservative Government in the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. The restrictions that will remain when the Bill is enacted will be largely theoretical. For example, it is highly unlikely that anyone who has lobbied us on the subject will be in a position to own a digital multiplex. Following the Committee's report, we have decided that religious organisations should have access to a national digital radio licence.
  The Bill has been much improved by extensive consultation. I have great confidence in commending it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 14, Noes 329.

  Division No. 15]

  [9:59 pm

  AYES

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Gummer, rh John

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Hermon, Lady

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Salmond, Alex

  858

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Pete Wishart and

  Weir, Michael

  Hywel Williams

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cranston, hon. Ross

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Crausby, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cruddas, Jon

  Allan, Richard

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Allen, Graham

  Cummings, John

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bailey, Adrian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Baird, Vera

  Darling, rh Alistair

  Barrett, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Battle, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Denham, rh John

  Benn, Hilary

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Berry, Roger

  Doughty, Sue

  Best, Harold

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Betts, Clive

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Blackman, Liz

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Edwards, Huw

  Borrow. David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Breed, Colin

  Fisher, Mark

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Flint, Caroline

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Burden, Richard

  Burgon, Colin

  Foulkes, rh George

  Burnett, John

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Burstow, Paul

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Byers, rh Stephen

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Gilroy, Linda

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Harvey, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Cohen, Harry

  Healey, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Heath, David

  Colman, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heppell, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Heyes, David

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  859

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Holmes, Paul

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miliband, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hutton, rh John

  Mole, Chris

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Illsley, Eric

  Moore, Michael

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Moran, Margaret

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Morgan, Julie

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Morley, Elliot

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Helen (Warnngton N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Olner, Bill

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  O'Neill, Martin

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keen, Alan (Fettham)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Prescott, rh John

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Lamb, Norman

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lammy, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Lepper, David

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Rendel, David

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Linton, Martin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Love, Andrew

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Stephen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  McDonnell, John

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  McFall, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McKechin, Ann

  Sawford, Phil

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  860

  Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Soley, Clive

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Spellar, rh John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Rachel

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Ward, Claire

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Watts, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  White, Brian

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stringer, Graham

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wilson, Brian

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Worthington, Tony

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Thurson, John

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Thurso, John Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wyatt, Derek

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Fraser Kemp and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Dan Norris

  Question accordingly negatived:
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on second or third reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Communications Bill

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
    "That, at this day's sitting, the motion relating to Estimates, 2001–02 in the name of Ruth Kelly may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
    Question agreed to.

    COMMUNICATIONS BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders 128 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Communications Bill:
    Committal
    (1) The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    Proceedings in Standing Committee

    (2) Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 6th February 2003.

    (3) The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading

    (4) Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

    (5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.

    (6) Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

    Other proceedings

    (7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 102.

    Division No. 16]

    [10:14 pm

    AYES

    Abbott Ms Diane

    Colman, Tony

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Allen, Graham

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Cousins, Jim

    Cranston, hon. Ross

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Crausby, David

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cruddas, Jon

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cummings, John

    Baird, Vera

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Battle, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Beard, Nigel

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Dalyell, Tam

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Benn, Hilary

    Davidson, Ian

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Berry, Roger

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Best, Harold

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Betts, Clive

    Denham, rh John

    Blackman, Liz

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Blizzard, Bob

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Edwards, Huw

    Bryant, Chris

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Burden, Richard

    Farrelly, Paul

    Burgon, Colin

    Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Fisher, Mark

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Flint, Caroline

    Caton, Martin

    Follett, Barbara

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Challen, Colin

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Chaytor, David

    Clapham, Michael

    Foulkes, rh George

    Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Gilroy, Linda

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Goggins, Paul

    Coaker, Vernon

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Grogan, John

    Cohen, Harry

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Coleman, Iain

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    862

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hanson, David

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    McWalter, Tony

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    McWilliam, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Healey, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Heppell, John

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Heyes, David

    Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Martlew, Eric

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Miliband, David

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Miller, Andrew

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Mole, Chris

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Moran, Margaret

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morgan, Julie

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Morley, Elliot

    Hutton, rh John

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Mudie, George

    Illsley, Eric

    Mullin, Chris

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Olner, Bill

    Jamieson, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jenkins, Brian

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Plaskitt, James

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Joyce. Eric (Falkirk W)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Prescott, rh John

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Kelly, Ruth (Bo/ton W)

    Purchase, Ken

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Kidney, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N & Bellshill)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Lammy, David

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Lazarowicz. Mark

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lepper, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Leslie, Christopher

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ruane, Chris

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Linton, Martin

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    Love, Andrew

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sawford, Phil

    McCabe, Stephen

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Singh, Marsha

    McDonnell, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    McFall, John

    Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    McIsaac, Shona

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    McKechin, Ann

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Soley, Clive

    863

    Spellar, rh John

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Squire, Rachel

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Locnaoer)

    vaz, Keith (Leicester t)

    Ward, Claire

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Watts, David

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    White, Brian

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Stringer, Graham

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wilson, Brian

    Tami, Mark (Alyn)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaste C)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Woolas, Phil

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Worthington, Tony

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Timms, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wright David (Telford)

    Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Wyatt Derek

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Trickett, Jon

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Truswell, Paul

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Dan Norris

    NOES

    Allan, Richard

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Knight rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Baldry, Tony

    Lamb, Norman

    Barrett, John

    Lansley, Andrew

    Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Bellingham, Henry

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Bercow, John

    Lidington, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Maclean, rh David

    Breed, Colin

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Burnett, John

    Mates, Michael

    Burstow, Paul

    Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Cameron, David

    Moore, Michael

    Cotter, Brian

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Öpik, Lembit

    Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

    Osborne, George (Tatton)

    Doughty, Sue

    Page, Richard

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Evans, Nigel

    Paterson, Owen

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Flook, Adrian

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Forth, rh Eric

    Redwood, rh John

    Francois, Mark

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Rendel, David

    Goodman, Paul

    Robathan, Andrew

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Robertson, Angus (Moray)

    Greenway, John

    Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Gummer, rh John

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Hammond, Philip

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Hancock, Mike

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Salmond, Alex

    Harvey, Nick

    Sanders, Adrian

    Heald, Oliver

    Shepherd, Richard

    Heath, David

    Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns & Kincardine)

    Hermon, Lady

    Holmes, Paul

    Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Stunell, Andrew

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Swayne, Desmond

    864

    Syms, Robert

    Whittingdale, John

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Thurso, John

    Willis, Phil

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Wishart, Pete

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Watkinson, Angela

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Mr. Mark Hoban and

    Weir, Michael

    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan

    Question accordingly agreed to.

    COMMUNICATIONS BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Communications Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (1) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State—

    (a) for or in connection with the carrying out of any of his functions under the Act; or

    (b) in the making of payments to OFCOM in respect of the establishment, installation or use by the Crown of stations or apparatus for wireless telegraphy; and

    (2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    Question agreed to.

    COMMUNICATIONS BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Communications Bill ("the Act"), it is expedient to authorize—

    (1) provisions by virtue of which persons are or may be required to pay sums to the Office of Communications in respect of allocations of telephone numbers;

    (2) provisions by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 or of grants of recognised spectrum access are or may be required to pay sums to the Office of Communications in connection with such licences or grants;

    (3) provisions by virtue of which holders of licences granted under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or the Broadcasting Act 1996 are or may be required to pay sums to the Office of Communications in connection with such licences;

    (4) provisions by virtue of which holders of television licences granted under the Act are or may be required to pay sums to the British Broadcasting Corporation;

    (5) provisions by virtue of which fees are chargeable under the Enterprise Act 2002;

    (6) any incidental charges to tax which may arise from amendments made by the Act to references to public telecommunication systems or telecommunication apparatus in enactments relating to income tax; and

    (7) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

    Question agreed to.

  Estimates, 2001–02
  10.27 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly): I beg to move,
  That the limits on non-operating appropriations in aid set for the purposes of section 2 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 for the year that ended on 31st March 2002 be modified in accordance with HC 121.
  The purpose of the motion is to provide for the correction of an error in the Appropriation Act 2002. The annual Appropriation Act provides statutory authority for the spending plans of Departments as set out in their Supply estimates. Since 2001–02, the Supply estimates have been presented on a resource basis, and the Appropriation Acts, which cover various aspects of departmental spending over a three-year period, have been revised accordingly.
  In authorising spending plans as set out in the supplementary estimates for 2001–02, however, the 2002 Act failed to reflect fully the move to resource estimates. The Act omitted the changes to non-operating appropriations-in-aid set out in those supplementary estimates. Details of the Departments and amounts involved are set out in HC121. The omission is in urgent need of correction. The 2001–02 accounts are in the process of being audited by the National Audit Office, which is signing off any departmental accounts affected by the error on the understanding that statutory authority to regularise the spending will be sought at the earliest opportunity. The procedures for drafting and checking the relevant draft legislation are being revised to help ensure that such an omission does not occur again.
  I assure the House that there is no intention to provide new cash or resources for Departments. The purpose of the motion is simply to provide for the proper statutory authority for spending, as presented to Departments in their 2001–02 supplementary estimates and voted on by the House in the context of motions tabled on 11 December 2001 and 7 March 2002.
  Peter Bottomley: Is the Minister essentially saying that this was a £3,000 million mistake?
  Ruth Kelly: I am telling the House that non-operating appropriations-in-aid were not underpinned by the necessary statutory authority.
  I commend the motion to the House.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Mark Prisk: I begin by thanking the Financial Secretary for her statement, although I should say that it was as interesting for what was left out as for what was kept in.
  Opposition Members recognise that, where errors of this nature arise, they need prompt correction, so we welcome the opportunity to debate these estimates without restriction to a particular hour. I shall of course not detain the House any more than is necessary, but quite whether my colleagues will wish to raise important supplementary questions is entirely a matter for them and for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  866
  From what the Financial Secretary did say, it is clear that errors have arisen in both the drafting and the checking of the original legislation. Some may argue that the fault rests with the parliamentary draftsman or with the Clerks. However, I do not know whether that is true in this instance, because the relevant information was not provided in the ministerial statement. Whether it is true or not, the ultimate responsibility for Government business that passes through this House must rest with the sponsoring Department—in this case, the Treasury. So I do hope that the Financial Secretary will, in her reply to this debate—whenever that may take place—accept that final responsibility for these errors rests with her and with the Treasury, and not simply with the parliamentary draftsman or with the Clerks.
  On first reading, the omissions in the current appropriations legislation may seem minor and obscure—particularly at this time of day—but they are in fact of considerable importance. They mean that the 2001–02 winter-spring supplementary estimates have, strictly speaking, no statutory authority. Thus any Government spending that has drawn on these estimates is, in effect, irregular and illegal. The omissions also mean that, at the moment, it would not be possible for the National Audit Office to finalise the Government's accounts for the past financial year, because of the irregular nature of the resources involved. Given these problems and their significance for the public finances, I should appreciate it if the Financial Secretary provided the House with some assurances.
  Further to the Financial Secretary's opening remarks, can she confirm that this motion represents merely a correction in respect of the statutory authority, and that it does not represent any change in policy—which she did not mention—or in the amount of resources or cash allocated? Secondly, is she certain that the only Departments and Government agencies affected are those listed in appendix A to the motion, and can she confirm—despite her attempt to avoid the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley)—that the sum involved is indeed £3,000 million, roughly speaking? Is she also aware that appendix A appears to contain an error in respect of the figure allocated to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions? Is that figure £2 and 6.8p, or is it in fact £2,068,154,000, as is printed in the document? I am afraid that the problems are beginning to pile up. The concern is the trustworthiness of the document before us. Given that its purpose is to correct an error in the first place, I hope that the Financial Secretary will treat the matter properly.
  Thirdly, can the Financial Secretary confirm that these capital—or non-operating—resources include activities such as public-private partnerships and private finance initiative schemes, as well as other contracts with business suppliers? If so, what is the current legal status of those contracts? I ask that particular question because anyone in private business knows that they would face severe personal and regulatory penalties for entering into a commercial relationship without due authority.
  Indeed, one of the criticisms of those behind the World Con and Enron scandals was that they entered into contracts when they did not have the appropriate money to do so. If the Minister is telling the House that Government Departments have bought goods and

  867
  services and have entered into contractual relationships backed only by resources that are irregular and illegal, many people—including business people—will want to know why. They will also want to know who in Government will take responsibility for the blunder.
  I hope that the Financial Secretary will explain to the House the legal status of contracts backed by irregular resources, and whether there are any other financial or legal ramifications of the error of which the House should be advised.
  Peter Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend ask the Financial Secretary to say, when she responds to the debate, whether the £2,000 million for the Department of Transport is disputed accountancy regarding the money to be provided to the successor to Railtrack, or whether that is still to come in some other supplementary estimate?
  Mr. Prisk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who as usual asks a pertinent question. I am sure that the Financial Secretary will be only too pleased to answer it when her turn comes.
  Six days ago, the Chancellor came to the House to present corrected borrowing and growth figures, having got his sums wrong earlier in the year. Today, the Financial Secretary has had to come to the House to correct legislation that has rendered some Government expenditure illegal and irregular. Opposition Members will support the prompt correction of any errors, and will not oppose the motion. However, we expect the Financial Secretary to acknowledge the importance of the error, and to accept her responsibilities and those of the Department. We also expect her to answer our questions in full, and to explain why the once trusted work of the Treasury has become unreliable.
  10.36 pm
  Andrew Mackinlay: You may have been in the Chamber some years ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I told the First Lord of the Treasury that it was the duty of Labour Members to provide scrutiny and accountability, without fear or favour, and without showing partial affection. That is what I intend to do this evening. This matter deserves scrutiny. It raises an issue that hon. Members have neglected for far too long—our historic duty of voting Supply. We have abdicated that responsibility, but I think that it should be restored. This motion may give us an opportunity to canvass that proposition.
  The error also shows that there has been sloppy administration and disregard for the House. In addition, I understand that even if we agree this motion we cannot escape the necessity of passing new primary legislation. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary or the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman covered that. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm whether new primary legislation will be needed to correct the error.
  The document in the possession of hon. Members states:
  The Appropriation Act 2002 did not include … the amounts, which it authorised to be applied … The absence of authorisation through the Appropriation Act 2002 means that departments' utilisation of any of those amounts to finance expenditure lacks statutory authority."
  868
  I took the opportunity during the Division to clarify the fact that the motion will get us through the crisis to which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred and which probably involves the National Audit Office. However, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will probably have to make time available at some stage for new legislation to regularise the matter. The House is entitled to be told the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
  In my life I have been guilty of many things, one of them being that I have occasionally criticised the Government. To that, I say, "No surrender." However, there are also times when it is possible to speak in favour of the Government with great enthusiasm.
  Informally, I indicated that I should like to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can tell the House that the relationship between us is good, and you said that the motion was very narrowly drafted.
  Indeed it is, but there are a lot of matters before us that I do not think the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has rumbled. I did not see in his hands documents HC 636 or HC 391. If I am wrong, I apologise unreservedly. I know that other people are exercised by this matter, because I can see that they have their copies.
  In the Supply estimates on non-operating appropriations in aid, paragraph 3 states:
  "Therefore, new authorisation is being sought from the House of Commons to appropriate the non-operating appropriations in aid contained in HC 391 and HC 636".
  I have them here. I do not wish to delay the House, but bearing in mind your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think you will that confirm the documents are within the footprint of the debate.
  Table 1.3 in both documents—dated February 2002 and December 2001—gives me an opportunity to speak proudly of the Government's achievements. I shall say why in summary, but I want to go into some detail. The table shows growth after growth in major essential public services voted for and provided by the Government. The No. 1 priority is giving everyone the chance, through education, training and work, to realise their full potential and thus build an inclusive and fair society. That was a key part of our manifesto. I had to check with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) that we were talking in millions, but the new net provision is £19 million. Some £2,200 million is to go towards helping people without a job into work through the employment service. I hope that when I read the Official Report I will see the right number of noughts.
  Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is taking us through the consequences of paragraph 3. I draw your attention to paragraph 1, which states:
  "The changes to the net cash requirements … were agreed to by the House of Commons in resolutions passed on 11 December 2001 and 7 March 2002."
  We seem to be going back to why those resolutions were passed. It may be worth asking whether we have to listen to the hon. Gentleman's every detail.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): The debate should relate to the proposed modifications and limits for non-operating appropriations-in-aid for the Departments set out in appendix A to HC 121 and to the circumstances that give rise to the need for new authorisation in the present Session. That is the narrowness of the debate on which I gave advice to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), and I hope that he will not try to drive a coach and horses through it by reciting things from the past.
  Andrew Mackinlay: Absolutely not, but may I invite you to look at the second sentence of paragraph 3, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It is explicit that we are dealing with non-operating appropriations-in-aid contained in HC 391 and HC 636 and set out in appendix A. I did not print this; the House of Commons did. HC 391 and HC 636 are, I think, within the footprint of the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must advise the hon. Gentleman that we are debating the circumstances that have necessitated this motion coming before the House tonight. We cannot reopen issues that were discussed and agreed by the House in the past.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I understood the Minister to say that they were not agreed. She said that unless we have this authorisation, the Government will be on skid row, or on the ropes with the auditors. I think that the Official Report will show that that is so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a rehearsal of the policy behind the various items on which the hon. Gentleman has sought to embark. We are discussing the technical matter of making the correction and the circumstances that have led to it. I really hope that he will take my advice on this.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I think that I am in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker; the document makes it clear. I do not think that your ruling excludes us from referring to the contents of HC 391 and HC 636—although I shall not do so.
  Peter Bottomley: If the hon. Gentleman will allow —
  Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman is not Speaker yet. I have a better hope than him—and more chance.
  Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the verb in the penultimate line of the first paragraph of the document that we are discussing? He questions whether the House of Commons agreed the changes. That paragraph states clearly that they were agreed.
  Andrew Mackinlay: But the hon. Gentleman will see that the first word of the next paragraph is "However" and that the paragraph continues:
  "final Parliamentary approval for appropriations in aid is given through an Appropriation Act. The Appropriation Act 2002 did not include … the amounts."
  870
  That is why we are discussing the matter tonight, and that is why HC 636 and HC 391 are fully within the footprint of legitimate discussion—irritating though that must be. I hope that I have convinced you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What I am saying to the hon. Gentleman is that he may refer to a document but he cannot go over the ground in detail and embark on a recital, as he appeared to be doing, of the various reasons behind it. We are on narrower ground than that.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I should not go into detail, because that would involve listing Labour's achievements, and to do that would take us beyond the relevant time tomorrow and we should lose a day's business. I should not do that.
  The document relates to public expenditure growth in every key area. That has not been made clear enough. I referred to the Department for Work and Pensions and to the Home Office, where the increased agenda for combating crime is making places safer, improving the Prison Service and helping the Treasury solicitor to bring people to book.
  It seems to me that we are entitled to examine every item of expenditure, because previous Parliaments abdicated their responsibility to do that and because the House to which we were elected has not—to our shame—set up adequate machinery for us to conduct that line-by-line scrutiny. The document deals with what is called virement in local government, and that should be the primary purpose of the House of Commons. It was in the past, and it should be so again.
  Obviously, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am persuaded by the force of your argument and by the authority of the Chair, but it is important that on some occasions we should look at things in detail. I am bewildered. Why on earth were HC 636 and HC 391 printed if not for us to study? However, there is a lack of procedures for virement and for line-by-line scrutiny of such things. Those documents give detailed breakdowns for every Department.
  I should like to go through the Government's great achievements, but as you have asked me not to, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall leapfrog over several pages to demonstrate that I would abuse neither your patience nor the time of the House. The last page of table 1.3 in HC 391 details "Peers' expenses and administration", about which we should perhaps he concerned, as there has been an increase of £74 million.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: What a waste of public money.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking about recurrent expenditure and not non-operating appropriations.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that we should stick to appropriations-in-aid
  Andrew Mackinlay: In that case, we should receive a fuller explanation from Members on the Treasury

  871
  Bench as to precisely what the appropriations-in-aid are. A simple explanatory document in plain English could have been produced for people who are not necessarily au fait with the details of the estimates — not only for humble Members of Parliament such as me but also for people outside. They would then have been able to understand the reason for the debate, because there has not been an adequate explanation.
  We should be proclaiming the amount of expenditure; we should not be ashamed of it. I cannot understand why the Government are ashamed of the measures that we are endorsing, or authorising, or giving authority to, tonight. Why are we so shy about it? We all make mistakes sometimes. The Minister could have got the mistake over quickly, beaten her breast three times and said, "This is something that we are proud of, and we should proclaim it from the Dispatch Box," because we could be told about all these achievements.
  Having made the point, I would hope that Treasury Ministers and the House authorities will not simply avoid a repetition of this occurrence but will reflect on how the House can in future give a critical examination of the estimates in general, and of any variations for the remedy of any procedural error that does occur; because otherwise, it seems to me, we just reinforce the charade of this House of Commons rubber-stamping tablets of stone handed down by the Executive of the day, which I am not prepared to acquiesce in any longer.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. David Laws: Given the late hour, and the Financial Secretary's charming apology—I think that it was an apology, however short—it is tempting to nod through this error involving £3 billion of Government expenditure and laugh it off as an administrative error which we should not spend too much time on.
  However, the mistake, and the speech by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), highlight the fact that there are some very substantive issues that the Government need to address, which cast light on the way in which the House scrutinises—or perhaps on many occasions fails to scrutinize — the expenditure side of the Government accounts. That for me was highlighted when I rang the Library earlier today to establish what this evening's debate was about.
  The Library faxed through to me the very brief description that the Financial Secretary gave us about the substance of the debate. When a series of simple questions were then asked about what the sums of money consisted of, and what the causes of some of the errors were, the Library could not tell us the answers. It therefore telephoned the Treasury, and spoke to its contact for the Treasury officials to establish what these amounts were and what they related to, and to ask some basic questions about them—whether they were net or gross, and which Departments they related to specifically. I am afraid to say that the Treasury message that came back was that both the Treasury officials and the Library were uncertain about some of these answers, and that perhaps they were issues that we should raise in the debate. When we reach the stage when not only the Library but the Treasury officials are uncertain about what we are being asked to approve, it is incumbent on the House to scrutinise very carefully what the Government are putting before us.
  872
  May I therefore ask the Financial Secretary some specific points about the comments that she made at the beginning? First, can she give us some more detail about why that £3 billion of expenditure has been mislaid for a time in the Government's accounts? Who made the error and why was it not picked up? Is there no system of checks within the Treasury that would be expected to pick up errors of this type? Was the error a consequence of the shift to resource accounting and budgeting, or was it a consequence of some other error in the Department?
  Secondly, as the hon. Members for Thurrock and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) asked in their speeches, what exactly are the amounts that have been put before us today? It suggests a certain amount of carelessness when the largest figure on the table before us, which we assume is £2,068,154,000 for what was then the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, is not even denominated correctly, so we cannot establish whether that is the precise sum. But what are these sums?
  There are quite a variety of them, from that £2,068,154,000 for the DTLR all the way down to smaller sums, such as £76,000 for the Department of Trade and Industry. What exactly are those amounts? Can the Financial Secretary tell us what underlies those very large figures, which she expects us to scrutinise and approve tonight?
  Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point. I am looking at the figure for the DTLR and it clearly states—this may be a misprint—"2.068,154,000". That is extraordinary. There are commas and a delineating point. What is the figure? Are we talking about trillions or billions? Given that the Treasury presumably has a computer that works, is it not extraordinary that we are discussing the fact that the Government have made a mistake with £3 billion of taxpayers' money?
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, as ever. I am not sure whether I agree that the sum is a trillion. I did not read the figure in that way, but it certainly denotes a certain carelessness when the Government have to return to the House to clarify whether £3 billion of expenditure has been lost, but then cannot even get the digits right.
  David Taylor: Does not this whole saga highlight the appalling degree of innumeracy that often exists at the highest levels of Government? This is a nation of 60 million people that spends £420 billion—approximately £7,000 per head, on average—but that expenditure is subject to much less scrutiny than that of a parish of 600, which spends £4,200 at £7 per head. Have we not got the telescope the wrong way round in this country?
  Mr. Laws: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, which supports the position taken by the hon. Member for Thurrock. I hope to make a few more comments about that matter in a minute, but perhaps the Financial Secretary can clarify what the amounts are. We know that they are likely to represent capital expenditure, but what do they relate to? Why is the amount for the DTLR so large? Are these net payments

  873
  and receipts, or are they the gross amounts that have been paid? Does the fact that officials and Ministers are discussing these matters as we speak suggest that some of those exceptionally basic questions are not in the forefront of Treasury Ministers' minds?
  Mr. Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman asks whether the amounts are net or gross, and whether they are receipts or payments. That is not entirely clear because the Department for International Development has a negative figure of £6 million. What on earth are we talking about—expenditure, receipts or both? The Government have not been entirely straightforward in explaining this matter to us.
  Mr. Laws: That is another powerful point—[Interruption.] Very powerful points are being made by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  We do not know precisely what the figures are. We suspect that the negative amounts are capital receipts, but perhaps the Financial Secretary will clarify that. We do not know whether they have been netted off against capital payments. We look forward to the Financial Secretary's enlightening us on that later in the debate, because we certainly will not want to approve the estimates unless we know what they are.
  Can the Financial Secretary also clarify whether the amounts have been spent and received already? Are we being asked for retrospective permission for expenditure and receipts that have already been given effect, or is the House being consulted in advance of any of these payments and expenditure being approved? What checks will be put in place in future to ensure that such errors are not repeated?
  A number of Members have commented on the attitude of the House of Commons to the expenditure issues underlying this debate. That raises a wider issue that is directly relevant to the debate and to the way in which the House holds the Government to account for expenditure. To many of us, it seems that we still have a medieval system in this country in terms of the scrutiny of Government expenditure and receipts. We still act as if we were a Parliament in the 13th, 14th or 15th century being asked simply to approve revenue raising by a monarch, and being unconcerned about how the monarch spends that money once it is raised. We spend time on scrutinising the tax elements of the Budget, and sometimes we do not approve of them, but we have no record of scrutinising expenditure measures as many other legislatures throughout the world do.
  The Select Committee on Procedure commented on that in 1981, when it produced a report saying:
  "parliamentary control of government expenditure is a myth".
  The Committee supported that in 1997–98 by saying:
  "if … not a constitutional myth, it is very close to one".
  You may be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that over the last year my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has made similar points and expressed similar concerns about the lack of scrutiny of expenditure in this place. He has pointed out in a number of debates that the last occasion when the House turned down a request from Ministers for cash
  874
  was in 1919, when the then Lord Chancellor was denied the funding for a second bathroom. That highlights the appalling lack of scrutiny of Government expenditure, which will rise, including these specific measures, to some £511 billion by the end of this expenditure review period.
  The Government therefore have two major questions to answer tonight. First, as the hon. Member for Thurrock asked: what will they do to improve scrutiny of expenditure in the future, to make such errors less likely to occur by having a proper debate in this place, and to give the House power to scrutinise expenditure, to suggest increases in expenditure and to suggest changes to expenditure priorities? All those measures are available in other legislatures across the world, but not in this House. Those scrutiny measures relate directly to this debate, as, if we had such scrutiny, we would be less likely to vote through measures that miss out £3 billion worth of Government expenditure. Secondly, will the Financial Secretary respond to the detailed questions that I posed at the beginning of my comments about what the expenditure is, and the safeguards in the future? Unless we receive a persuasive response to both questions, we will be obliged to object to the estimates being approved.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I should like to return to the motion. I wish that I could agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that high constitutional matters are at stake, but perhaps I can give a simple explanation. I am not sure that it is my job to ride to the aid of the Government, but in the interests of fairness, it is my duty as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to explain to the House what has happened.
  The need for the motion has arisen, as the Financial Secretary has told us, because of the omission, in error, of details of non-operating appropriations-in-aid from the relevant schedules to the Appropriation Act 2002. The omission arose from an administrative error on the part of the Clerk of Supply, which was not spotted by the Treasury when it checked the Bill. There may, therefore, be some fault inside the Treasury, which we may need to examine in future. I very much doubt, however, that that fault went all the way up to Ministers—I would be surprised if it did.
  The error was caused by changes made to the form of the Appropriation Act 2002 that resulted from the change to resource-based Supply. You may know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are changing all Government accounts over to resource accounting and that has caused difficulties for Departments.
  Michael Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I shall carry on for the moment, as I am anxious to explain these matters calmly.
  I have spoken today to the Clerk of the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the directors responsible and, in my view, the error is not in any way attributable to the Government, but the motion is necessary to rectify the situation. Appropriations-in-aid are revenues that Departments generate and that they are authorised to retain to finance expenditures

  875
  over and above those financed from the consolidated fund. In other words and to explain it simply, if they have sold land, for instance, and want to keep the money in the Department, they can do so. The omission of references to these amounts in the Appropriation Act 2002 meant that the utilisation of these amounts had no statutory backing. That is why the motion is before us.
  However, to be fair to the Government, it is important to note that the relevant information was laid before Parliament in the winter and spring supplementary estimates, voted on and approved. I do not think that anything has been kept back from the House of Commons, and I say that because I would not like the House, which should treat estimates seriously, to think that it has been kept in the dark.
  The National Audit Office has been in discussion with the Clerk of Supply and the Treasury on the most appropriate way to give statutory backing to these amounts and so that the administrative error can be righted. The motion seeks to achieve that goal. I have discussed it with the National Audit Office and it has asked me to say that it has sought action to be taken as swiftly as possible because many departmental resource accounts are affected and are in the process of being finalised. In the meantime and in anticipation of the action that I hope that we shall take tonight, it has agreed for additional disclosure to be included in the accounts of the affected Departments. On that basis alone, it is comfortable that there is no need to qualify the accounts of the Departments.
  In summary, it is the view of the National Audit Office that this motion is an appropriate course of action to rectify the effects of an administrative error by the Clerk of Supply. In fairness to him, he has written a memorandum to my Committee and I see no reason not to read it out. He says:
  "I am extremely sorry that a mistake in the preparation of this Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill for which I am responsible as Clerk of Supply has caused considerable inconvenience to the House of Commons, to the National Audit Office and to Government Departments."
  That is a very generous apology. We should leave the matter there.
  11.8 pm
  Peter Bottomley: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke in the way that he did. It is clear that we are not dealing with the general question of whether the House should approve line by line every part of Government expenditure. If that were the proposal before us, I would oppose it, because Members of Parliament and groups of Members of Parliament would go in for the type of pork-barrel politics that is not one of the greatest features of the American system. The fact that we can argue for our constituents' or other interests is important, but line-by-line approval of spending is not necessarily, on balance, a good thing.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has probably found his way into a dictionary of quotations when he talked of rubber stamping tablets of stone. That expression will be remembered — especially if I have anything to do with it.
  876
  The Financial Secretary moved the motion properly. The combination of what she and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said spelled the position out clearly. Even from the limited notes in appendix A, it is clear what happened. The House knew what it was doing, and the Financial Secretary has spelled out that there will be no extra spending. The only point that I wish to add is to ask whether it is possible to find a better expression than non-operating appropriations. If it is not capital spending or capital receipts, what is it? To say what it is not does not tell us what it is. I hope that the plain English campaign in the Treasury will deal with that point.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I accept what the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said. However, a serious point is involved. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary could have said the same thing and/or it could have been made clear in an explanatory memorandum. If we had been given the logical explanation, we would have avoided much understanding. The title of the document does not mean anything to anyone; it is gobbledygook.
  Peter Bottomley: I agree that the debate is useful because things should not pass through the House without hon. Members understanding what is happening. The Minister should be congratulated, however, because it was better to hear the full explanation from my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who is Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. That courtesy to the House is appreciated.
  11.10 pm
  Michael Fabricant: I welcome the brief opportunity to speak. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for clarifying the situation. We often receive estimates for billions of pounds, which is not our money, but taxpayers' money, that we rubber stamp with little understanding of what we are agreeing to, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) said.
  I understand that the problem was due to an accounting error because of the Government Resource and Accounts Act 2000, which sets out the new Treasury accounting procedures. Will this be the last time that the Minister comes to the House to ask for an amendment to be made because of an accounting error? I accept that it may not be, and we need to understand the situation fully.
  I disagree ever so slightly with the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws). Although I was not in the Chamber, I listened to the Minister and am not altogether sure that she apologised. Although I do not think for one moment that she is personally responsible, or even that her officials are responsible, at the end of the day we are discussing £3 billion of taxpayers' money. There are many reasons why hon. Members are sent to the House. One of them is to look after taxpayers' money and how it is spent.
  Peter Bottomley: The sense of my hon. Friend's comments may be right, but I suspect that we should pay

  877
  attention to the fact that the error was made in the House. I am pretty certain that it was detected in the Treasury.
  Michael Fabricant: That is reassuring, but the appropriation is generated from a Treasury motion. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that. To echo what my hon. Friend said, I, too, am grateful that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee set the record straight. But why should my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough be the patsy? Surely the Minister should have explained the problem fully. As the hon. Member for Thurrock said, there should have been a clearer explanation on the Order Paper and in connection with Command Paper 121. It is not clear what precise moneys we are talking about and how the situation arose.
  This is a brief but important debate. I reiterate that we are talking about £3 billion of taxpayers' money. Although the money was not lost, we have to account for it, and it is right and proper that it be debated. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the problem will not happen again.
  11.13 pm
  Ruth Kelly: With the permission of the House, I thank hon. Members for their commendable interest in the debate. I want to pay a special tribute to the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley). They brought great experience and maturity to the debate. Much as I enjoyed the other contributions, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), the hon. Member for Gainsborough in particular set out in detail why the motion has been tabled.
  I was not aware of the letter of apology by the Clerk of Supply. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a very generous apology, and the House should recognise that.
  I accept responsibility for the fact that the matter was not picked up during he Treasury's checking procedure. The Treasury was the first Department to notice the error, but clearly it did so after the event rather than before the original votes had taken place. Procedures will, of course, be tightened up, and I am sure that much more attention will be paid to such issues in future.
  This particular issue arose, as the hon. Gentleman set out so clearly, because 2001–02 was the first year of the resource estimates, and the Appropriation Act 2002 failed to reflect the changes required. Under cash-based supply there was only one type of appropriation-in-aid, whereas under resource supply we have operating, relating to resource income, and non-operating, relating to capital income, appropriations-in-aid. The 2002 Act included authority only for the operating appropriations in aid. The National Audit Office, although concerned about the lack of statutory underpinning, has accepted the income and expenditure in the accounts that were presented on the basis that the
  878
  problem resulted from an administrative error, that Parliament has had the estimates laid before it and that it has voted on them.
  Dr. Gibson: On a point of clarification, may I take it that the letter of apology was sent not to the Minister but to the Chairman of a Select Committee?
  Ruth Kelly: I cannot answer as to whom the letter was written, but it has not yet found its way to my desk. It may well have been written to the hon. Member for Gainsborough.
  Mr. Leigh: The letter is a memorandum submitted by the Clerk of Supply of the Public Bill Office of the House of Commons, and was sent to the Clerk of my Committee. I have read out the apology, and I think that we should pay tribute to a servant of the House who has made an honest mistake and who has now apologised for it.
  Ruth Kelly: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I am sure the House does. The motion in no way provides the Government with any additional spending authority. It simply provides for the correction of that regrettable administrative error.
  Mr. Prisk: The hon. Lady said that, in these circumstances, the NAO is prepared to accept the accounts as long as matters progress. However, she did not say that, at the moment, the NAO cannot finalise the accounts, so without this change the Government's accounts for the last financial year cannot be completed. Will she confirm that?
  Ruth Kelly: The NAO is signing off departmental accounts, and it has signed off some on the understanding that legislative authority is to be urgently sought because it is needed to regularise the position.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady made that point in her opening remarks, when she said that the NAO was signing off accounts even though it does not have the authorisation to do so. Is it common for the NAO to do that? If a private company were to behave in that way towards a company's accounts, it would rightly be prosecuted. Call me old-fashioned, but that seems to me to be rather an important point.
  Ruth Kelly: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, most private companies do not have the opportunity to have their accounts agreed and voted on by Members of this House.
  Clearly the position needs to be regularised; that is the NAO's approach, and I intend to rectify the matter through this motion.
  Michael Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ruth Kelly: I shall give way one last time, but after that I must not detain the House much longer.
  Michael Fabricant: I just want to repeat the question that I asked when I made my small contribution. Can the Minister now assure us that she has, as she puts it,

  879
  regularised the position not only today, but for future years? Will she confirm that this error arising from the change in accounting practice will not happen again next year?
  Ruth Kelly: As I have explained to the House, this was the result of a one-off change from cash accounting to resource accounting. Clearly I cannot guarantee that no drafting errors will occur in future. I would not like to commit myself to anything of the sort, even under such intense pressure.
  However, the House should agree that we should resolve that issue today. Departments' spending, including the retention of income, must be regularised at the earliest opportunity. The motion paves the way for that process and will allow the 2001–02 resource accounts to be completed in accordance wit h legislative requirements. For those reasons, I commend the motion to the House.
  Question put —
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 4 December, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002.]

  Estimates, 2001–02

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 7 and 8 together.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 107) (HC60) on Special Grant for Activities Undertaken by Beacon Councils, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved.

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the draft Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 21st November, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

    PETITIONS

      Sutton Coldfield Courthouse
      11.20 pm
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I have the honour of laying a petition before the House signed by more than 5,500 people from Sutton Coldfield and the surrounding area, who express a virtually unanimous, united and clear-cut view that the courthouse in Sutton Coldfield should not close, and are supported by all the
      880
      political parties, the local magistracy, Her Majesty's coroner for Birmingham and councillors from all parties across Birmingham.
      The petition states:
      To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
      The humble petition of citizens in and around Sutton Coldfield showeth
      That it is proposed that the courthouse in Sutton Coldfield shall be closed.
      Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable house urge the Lord Chancellor's department not to permit this closure to go ahead.
      And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Natural Health Products
      11.22 pm
      Mr. Phil Willis: I have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of 252 constituents in and around Harrogate and Knaresborough.
      The petition states:
      The petition of Consumers for Health Choice and it supporters,
      Declares that consumers in the United Kingdom have for many years maintained good health by choosing to take safe vitamin and mineral supplements and herbal remedies; and fears that the European Food Supplements Directive and the Proposed European Directive on Traditional Herbal Medicinal Produces would severely restrict the number and range of such products on general retail sale in the future.
      The Petitioners therefore request that he House of Commons requires that the Secretary of State for Health does all in his power to protect the rights of UK consumers by ensuring that such European legislation does not unnecessarily and unacceptably restrict the availability of natural health products.
      To lie upon the Table.

      West Freugh Airfield
      11.23 pm
      Mr. Peter Duncan: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to present to the House a petition signed by almost 1,000 of my constituents, who expressed concern about the proposal to close West Freugh airfield and downgrade its range.
      The petition states:
      To the House of Commons,
      The petition of residents of Dumfries and Galloway declares that the proposals to close West Freugh Airfield and to downgrade West Freugh range to campaign status are mistaken and that the community has supported MOD operations there for over 60 years.
      The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Defence to reconsider the proposals and to arrange for Qinetiq to come forward with plans to continue with significant employment in the area, or else make plans to release assets for commercial job creating use by potential inward investors.
      And the Petitioners remain, etc.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Ethiopia
  Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg.]
  10.24 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am pleased to have secured the Adjournment debate on a subject that is of interest and concern to many people: the food shortages and subsequent possible famine in Ethiopia. I thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—who will accompany me on a visit that I shall mention shortly—and other hon. Members for attending.
  The debate is timely not only because of the recent warnings and appeal for help by the Ethiopian Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi, but because an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation leaves for Ethiopia on Saturday. I have the honour of having been appointed to lead it. I also have the pleasure of being a member of the British Ethiopian Society and secretary of the all-party British-Ethiopian group. I remain in regular contact with the Ethiopian ambassador to the United Kingdom, His Excellency Fisseha Adugna, who is an active and impressive representative of his country and a friend.
  Why am I so interested in Ethiopia? Like many people, my interest developed in the 1984 crisis when Bob Geldof and Live Aid did so much to highlight the problems in that country. Two years ago, a threatened famine reawakened that interest. I am personally concerned not because I have travelled to that country—I have not yet done so—nor because of any business links to the region, but because Ethiopia is so poor. Its residents regularly face hunger and possible starvation. The aid agencies believe that things can be done to alleviate that poverty and at least mitigate if not remove the threat of hunger and famine in future.
  I shall discuss medium-term and longer-term measures shortly. First, I want to concentrate on the urgent need for food aid, for which the Ethiopian Government pleaded recently. Earlier this year, the short Belg rains failed, and the long Kiremt rains occurred in late summer rather than earlier, resulting in a long dry period. The loss of those rains meant crop failure and further reduced pasture and water resources, with the latter leading to extensive livestock deaths in affected areas and poor physical conditions for surviving animals. In turn, that led to severely limited access to a green harvest of important lean season foods and the limited availability of livestock products. Serious food shortages are reported in several parts of the country.
  There is therefore an urgent need for emergency food aid. The Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission says that the people who need assistance between October and December this year will peak at 6.3 million, requiring approximately 270,000 metric tonnes of food. The World Food Programme reported last month that such aid has been promised, although delivering it as quickly as possible is now urgent. However, the impact of the current drought is expected to extend into next year, as the failure of the rains has affected the growth of long-cycle crops.
  Ninety-seven per cent. of crops are rain fed and more than 85 per cent. of Ethiopians are subsistence farmers who depend on their Maher—November, December
  882
  and January—harvest. That food will simply not be there. In most years, Ethiopia depends on a certain amount of food aid to feed its people, but the position is now far more acute. The Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Commission estimates that as many as 14.3 million people could need assistance in the coming year.
  A total of approximately 2 million metric tonnes of food will be required to meet the need, with 500,000 metric tonnes being required in the first quarter of next year. Such a requirement is unprecedented, even during the highly publicised famine of 1984–85. I admit that that is the worst-case scenario, but the world should be prepared for it. The world must respond immediately because it takes a long time from reaching an agreement to help to delivering the food to the needy. Much food would be delivered through the single port of Djibouti, and therefore planning is essential to ensure that it has the capacity to cope with the influx.
  The response from the United Kingdom and the European Union is disappointing. I hope that a further announcement will be made by the Department for International Development before we leave for Ethiopia, but I am concerned that the Government appear reluctant to commit themselves to providing urgent food aid that could save people's lives.
  Mr. David Drew: I concur entirely with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I look forward to accompanying him. I hope that that will be on Sunday rather than Saturday, however, but we can sort that out in due course. Does he agree that one of the problems is that there is a big debate going on in Ethiopia and other African countries about whether they should take food aid--from America, in particular—containing genetically modified organisms? This is a crucial question, because the subsistence farmers are very reticent about accepting such food aid. Would the hon. Gentleman like to say that one thing that the British Government could do is to ensure that they do not send GMOs to Africa?
  Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. I am not qualified to say whether genetically modified food is safe, but I know that many people are concerned about it. I am certainly concerned about its safety, and perhaps representations could be made for non-GM food to be sent. After all, as I am about to say, there is hardly a shortage of food in the world.
  A world that produces more food than its population can eat can surely provide relief. In the European Union, we actually pay farmers not to farm. The 93,000 tonnes pledged by the EU, out of the first quarter requirement of up to 500,000 tonnes, could surely be increased. Let us not forget that, during the height of the common agricultural policy's folly—ironically, around the mid-1980s when Ethiopia's problems came to light, and when volunteers such as Bob Geldof were doing their utmost and the British public were digging deep into their own pockets—the EU spent half its entire budget on storing and disposing of surpluses. I realise that distribution problems existed at the time, but is it not obscene that people in one part of the world should destroy food while others, only a few hours away, starve to death? It is certainly obscene, but it is not inevitable.

  883
  The failure of the rains has exacerbated an already dire situation, which is perpetuated by ongoing poverty. At least 80 different languages are spoken in Ethiopia—which the Secretary of State has referred to as one of the poorest countries in the world—and it contains an even higher number of tribes. The common theme that links them all is, sadly, poverty, with a large part of the population living on less than $1 a day. On many occasions, people have cut trees down to sell for firewood. That leaves the topsoil exposed, increasing the risk of it being washed away if the rain should come. That would leave the ground hard and infertile, thereby adding to the desertification. Additionally, with the population growing rapidly in rural areas, trees and vegetation are being cleared to create more arable land. Other family assets have also been sold in an attempt to ward off short-term poverty. All those actions have resulted in the continuation of that poverty, and of the cycle of drought and famine.
  It is a paradoxical fact that Ethiopia does not have a water shortage—a number of rivers, notably the Blue Nile, cross its plateau — but it has a poor record of water management, with only 5 per cent. of its irrigable land being irrigated. The country lacks the money and the expertise to create the necessary irrigation, and it is a tragedy that such schemes were not provided by development aid following the tragic events of 1984–85. Why did that not happen?
  Ethiopia also lacks adequate storage facilities. In the last two years, it has enjoyed good harvests, but has been unable to store sufficient food to alleviate the present problem. Again, it would have been relatively easy for the developed world to provide such assistance. How sad it is that such measures were not taken, when those very actions would have had the potential to end famine in the country.
  The developed world could have helped in other ways, too, particularly by reviewing trade rules. The value of Ethiopia's exports per capita is the lowest in the world, and even those exports have been hit hard by the slump in coffee prices, which have fallen by 70 per cent. in four years. That has cost Ethiopia almost half its total annual export earnings. Again, how sad it is that the country that gave the world coffee is suffering so much from that commodity being its main export. However, with other products too, the European Union should look to help by removing the protective barriers that mean that many EU farmers remain inefficient and wasteful while third-world exporters are forced to subsist on a pittance.
  Debt, too, is an area in which the developed world can help. Total debt in Ethiopia has reached about 150 per cent. of gross domestic product and the cost of servicing that debt has risen to $118 million a year, which is about 12 per cent. of revenues. By contrast, the Government have spent only $13.5 million—a tenth of the cost of their debt interest payments—on food relief since July. The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other shareholders should cancel that debt completely and immediately, with strings attached if necessary, to give Ethiopia a chance.
  Other problems abound. AIDS has had a devastating effect on Ethiopia, as it has had on other areas of Africa. Many heads of household have lost their lives through the disease and many orphans have been created, thereby perpetuating poverty once again. Poverty leads to further poverty as further short-term measures are
  884
  taken with disastrous medium to long-term results, yet Ethiopia has so much to be proud of in terms of its history and recent developments.
  Ethiopia is the land of the fabled Queen of Sheba, the home of the Ark of the Covenant, the country of origin of coffee and the land where Lucy and, more recently, other remains dating back 4.4 million years were discovered. It can boast not only the longest archeological record of any country, but the fact that it has been independent longer than any country in Africa and that it was the first in the west, after Armenia, to adopt Christianity.
  In modern terms, the overthrow of the dictator Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam by the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front and the move to democracy in 1992, which was followed by the appointment of Meles Zenawi as Prime Minister in 1995, represent an impressive political turnaround. Low inflation of 1.3 per cent. and growth of 4.6 per cent. are also impressive, but Ethiopia cannot realise its full potential nor repeat its impressive history while it remains in the grip of poverty.
  Help is needed, including immediate emergency food aid, development aid, debt relief, a change in trade rules and reduced EU tariffs, and it is within the scope of the developed world to help in those ways. The UK should lead by setting an example. When we leave for Ethiopia on Saturday, we should be delighted to take good news with us, including details of how much aid this country is to provide, what form that aid will take and when Ethiopia can expect to receive it, for if and when we avert this crisis, we can move towards ensuring that it is the last. That would consign hunger and starvation in Ethiopia to the history books.
  11.38 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on his success in securing this Adjournment debate. He has focused on an issue of deep concern to many people across the country — indeed, across the world — and I know that he has taken a long-standing and constructive interest in it. I am sure that he and his colleagues will return from their visit to Ethiopia with much important information and many insights to the situation there.
  I shall try to deal with all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised as well as that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on GM food. I shall also set out the work that my Department is doing to help to deal with the humanitarian crisis and the measures that we are taking on the development issues that the hon. Gentleman raised. If there are any outstanding issues that I do not have time to discuss, perhaps we can take them up in writing.
  The hon. Gentleman graphically set out the nature of the problem in Ethiopia, which is an overwhelmingly agricultural society—the famine and the longer-term development issues. The situation there is a matter of deep concern and people are right to ask, "Why again?" However, I would argue that this time it is different, and the differences are both positive and negative.

  885
  First, I shall deal with some negative factors. The needs of the whole of Africa this year are huge. The UN is looking for just over US$2 billion for Consolidated Appeals in Africa for 2003, to meet the needs of people in a variety of countries. In Sudan, many people yet again face severe malnutrition. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, following the violent conflict, there is increased mortality as well as gross human rights abuses, particularly against women. Southern African countries are suffering from a mixture of drought, bad governance and HIV/AIDS.
  However, there have also been positive changes since 1984. The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight some of the progress that has been made in Ethiopia. Those positive developments include the effectiveness of early warning systems, and the willingness of the Government and the international community to work together. At the beginning of 2002 the Government made their normal request for food aid, not as an emergency appeal but as part of a package put together with the international community to address some of the more fundamental structural issues behind Ethiopia's continuing food insecurity.
  A total of 427,000 tonnes of food aid was requested to help meet the needs of some 5.9 million people who were at risk. That followed the generally good harvests of 2001. Signs of additional need in some areas emerged in June and July. They were centred in the Afar region and some neighbouring areas where most of the people have traditionally led pastoral lives. We expect to have the first estimates from surveys of the present situation within the next few days, and we may be able to ensure that the hon. Gentleman has them before he leaves for Ethiopia on Saturday. Perhaps he could keep in touch with the Department.
  Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what the Department is doing about the problems in Ethiopia. Along with our partners, we have taken action to help deal with the crisis. At the beginning of the year we supported the International Committee of the Red Cross appeal. In March we contacted the UN emergencies unit in Ethiopia to find out its priorities. We then contributed some £2.3 million to the World Food Programme for food relief, employment generation schemes and early warning systems. We have supported programmes initiated by UNICEF, the World Health Organisation, the UN emergencies unit in Ethiopia and the UN Development Programme. In response to emerging needs, we contributed again to the International Committee of the Red Cross and UNICEF, and in September we committed about £2.6 million to interventions by non-governmental organisations.
  We have also worked closely with our partners—the Ethiopian Government, other donors, UN agencies, the ICRC and NGOs—to alleviate the crisis. We have taken a series of actions at every level: that has included the involvement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development.
  886
  Inevitably there have been many comparisons with 1984, some of which were made by the hon. Gentleman; but lessons have been learnt since then, especially about the importance of effective co-ordination and early warning. Ethiopia now has an early warning system, and a disaster preparedness and prevention commission. It has also established a food security reserve, which provides a buffer stock for times of crisis. Food can be released and distributed as soon as donor commitments are made. Donors can then restock the reserve through local purchase of grain, international purchase or in-kind donation of grain, principally from the United States. I will deal with the point about GM food shortly.
  By contrast with what happened in 1984–85, Government, donors and non-governmental organisations now routinely work together to coordinate relief efforts and improve the response system. But, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is also a need to address some of the longer-term issues. We are focusing part of our long-term support on looking at ways of coping with the cyclical droughts from which Ethiopia has suffered. We are considering joint efforts with the Government of Ethiopia and key donors to tackle some of the underlying causes of food insecurity. For example, we will contribute to improvements in agriculture sector policies, and support efforts to increase people's access to markets through improvements in rural transport infrastructure. We will also help to reduce the vulnerability of the poor to drought by promoting the development of safety nets for people at risk. In pursuit of this, we are planning work with IrelandAid and USAID on different aspects of long-term food security. As one of the most vulnerable groups, the pastoralists to which the hon. Gentleman referred are an important target group for our work.
  The basis of our long-term development partnership with Ethiopia is the country's poverty reduction strategy, which demonstrates how Ethiopia plans to prioritise resources and policies towards tackling poverty. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury is doubtless aware of the poverty reduction strategies that have been produced by various developing countries. We hope to move to the provision of a programme of direct budget support in the near future, along with some technical cooperation in certain areas.
  One of the focal points of this programme is the longterm problem of food insecurity. Other planned areas for focus are capacity building and education. We are also actively supporting the tackling of HIV/AIDS, which the hon. Gentleman rightly said presents a difficultly in Ethiopia. We are also offering support to the road sector, which will be important in helping to reduce rural poverty.
  On the GM issue, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, GM varieties of maize and soya have been provided as food aid by the US for some time—since 1995, according to one report. Initially, this appears to have passed with little comment, but concerns were raised in southern Africa in 2002 because of the increasing domestic debate on GM issues in developing countries, and because of trade concerns.

  887
  Where GM maize is distributed in whole grain form, recipients of GM maize for food relief do have some cause for concern regarding the possible contamination of future exports to the EU. There might also be some risk to local biodiversity, because grain could be planted instead being consumed directly, or it could be introduced into the environment by spillage. However, this problem can be addressed if the grain is milled before distribution. In fact, my Department has provided the funds to do that where local objections have been raised.
  On food safety, however, the World Health Organisation and the World Food Programme have concluded that the consumption of foods currently provided as food aid that contain genetically modified organisms is not likely to present a human health risk. These foods can be eaten safely, and trade concerns do not arise for products from animals fed on GM crops under current or foreseen labelling regimes in developing countries. My Department's policy on the provision of food aid is that recipient Governments should be given enough information on the type of food that they receive and its characteristics, including whether it is genetically modified. Recipient countries should be allowed to decide on its acceptability, and donors should respect the decisions of recipients, and accommodate them as far as possible. For example, if milled cereals are preferred to whole grain in order to avoid GM grain being planted as seed, such an arrangement should be made. As I have said, my Department has set aside funding for that.
  At the moment, Zambia is the only country in southern Africa that has refused to accept grain containing genetically modified material. As Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made it clear that that decision by the Zambian Government means that a lot of people in Zambia will go hungry. That decision is obviously disappointing. The scientific evidence is clear that there is no risk from GM maize. We will obviously do our best to ensure that hungry people are fed, but the Zambian Government's decision will make it much more difficult for the international community to help the hungry in Zambia. However, that problem is currently confined to that one country. DFID's position
  888
  on GM has therefore been made clear, and I hope that that thoroughly answers the points raised by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.
  In summarising the aid that we have provided to date I shall also give the hon. Gentleman some good news to take with him on his trip to Ethiopia. In total, we have provided £12.3 million bilaterally to help meet humanitarian needs throughout 2002.
  On a multilateral basis, nearly 20 per cent. of the EU support is funded by the UK. That has included a total of 197,000 metric tonnes of food aid, €2.5 million in humanitarian support earlier in the year, and a further €4.2 million programme of humanitarian support under preparation. The Commission is also considering the provision of further assistance for 2003.
  We are constantly monitoring the situation and will play our part in terms of emergency relief, while also committing the resources needed to forge a long-term partnership to tackle the underlying poverty that increases the vulnerability of people if there is a drought.
  The UN estimates that the food pipeline is adequate until about the end of January. Because of the nature of the Ethiopian food security reserve, further donor cash pledges can translate into the immediate release of food for at least two months beyond that. However, current needs are still manifest so I am pleased to be able to announce that we are making available, immediately, a further £5 million for humanitarian support for Ethiopia. I hope that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury can take that good news with him, as I said. In addition, we will be closely assessing the position in 2003. A consolidated Government-UN appeal is expected in mid-January, and we will be considering further support.
  The situation in Ethiopia is serious, as it is elsewhere in Africa, but I hope that I have demonstrated very clearly to the House that we have moved on from 1984. With the close partnership between the Government and donors, and a swift and generous response from the international community—in which the Government will play a substantial part—we can prevent this from turning into a major crisis. That is the commitment of my Department, and I am sure that it is one that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury and others share.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.