Sitting of 31 January 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    National Lottery
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What was the average amount received from national lottery funds in each parliamentary constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [105937]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): According to my Department's national lottery awards database, £784 million of lottery money was awarded in the calendar year 1999. That equates to an average of £1,189,590 per constituency.
    Mr. Sheerman: Many hon. Members will have been astounded by how much their constituents have spent on the lottery over five years. How is expenditure from lottery revenues evened out throughout the country? The last time my right hon. Friend reported to the House there seemed to be much uneven distribution in favour of London and the south-east, whereas Yorkshire and Humber and Huddersfield were not receiving their share of the cake. What are we doing to distribute that very welcome lottery money evenly throughout the country?
    Mr. Smith: I am very pleased to tell my hon. Friend that since the lottery began Huddersfield has received £15.7 million, which is 42 per cent. more than the UK average. However, he correctly makes the general point that it is important to ensure that the geographical spread of lottery awards across the country is as fair as possible. That is why we put in place the National Lottery Act 1998, insisted that lottery distributers have proper strategic plans, introduced the small grants scheme and focused the new opportunities fund particularly on areas of need. I gave directions to all the lottery distributers insisting that they endeavour to secure a fairer geographical spread for awards.
    Mr. John Townend: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that every constituency could have had considerably more money if the Government had not wasted £399 million on the dome? Although it is always easy to be wise in hindsight, does he not agree that it
    764
    would have been better to spend the money on a permanent memorial to the millennium, not one that will be knocked down in 10 years?
    Mr. Smith: If the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported had had their way, the dome would have been knocked down after a year. The decisions that we took in 1997, immediately on coming to office, ensure that it will be in place for many years, if not decades, to provide a permanent legacy.
    Angela Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for the past two years I have been trying to obtain from Camelot comparative information on the number of tickets sold and the lottery grants awarded in my and other constituencies? I am pleased that the information has now been provided, albeit reluctantly. My constituents have spent about £60 million on lottery tickets and received £1.5 million back. Is not that Robin Hood in reverse and what action can he take to rectify it?
    Mr. Smith: I well understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. It is important to remember that only 28p of every pound spent on lottery tickets goes to good causes, with 50p going in prizes. Funds also go to the administration of the lottery and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, her point is important, which is precisely why we have put in place the new directions and new structures under the 1998 Act. They will seek, over time, to rectify the problem.
    Mr. Michael Fallon: Why should an extra £60 million of lottery funding given for those good causes be diverted, as is reported, to bail out the dome, which clearly does not have the proper strategic plan to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Of which is he proudest: the river that did not catch fire, the eye that does not revolve or the dome that nobody wants to visit?
    Mr. Smith: The reality is that no application for additional funding has yet been made to the Millennium Commission. However, on the advice of its accounting officer, when we met on Friday we took a prudent view of what the commission's opinion would be if an application for cash flow support were to be made. It was sensible to make such a decision. I strongly point out to the hon. Gentleman that such funding will and must be repaid; it is not an outright grant.

    Arts Organisations
    Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): If he will ensure that arts organisations benefiting from public funds make some unsold tickets available for use by schools. [105938]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): I can confirm that we plan to introduce a requirement that every arts organisation subsidised by central Government must have an access policy for young people and that that should include an element of free or concessionary tickets. We have made it clear to the Arts Council of England that we intend to build that approach into the next revision of

    765
    our funding agreement with it for 2000–01. Meanwhile, we have asked it to take account of that in on-going discussions with arts organisations.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that initiative. With £125 million extra available for the arts, how, specifically, does he intend to achieve a better, fairer regional spread, with Wales and the north-west in mind? Many children do not have an early introduction to the availability of music and the theatre, so may I commend to him the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society, which is working with families? Ian Wright, the timpanist, has informed me of the popularity of the concerts that the Phil organises for children. Can my hon. Friend ensure that more children are given returns and that the money made available is not wasted?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right to praise the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Society. I attended one of its concerts for children, and it was a very exciting and happy occasion.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the extra £125 million that we have provided for the arts. With that additional resource, we have embarked on a determined policy of devolving funds to the regions. In the present financial year, combined grant-in-aid and lottery money have increased in the regional arts boards by an average of some 44 per cent. We are determined that all our people, and all young people in particular, should have access to the very best of our culture.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the Minister's indication of the Government's thinking, and the direction of their spending. Does he accept, however, that if there is to be a universal entitlement to access to the performing arts, it will depend heavily on the willingness of education authorities and teachers to co-operate fully? When authorities and teachers are burdened with core curriculum requirements, examinations and form-filling, they are not always as responsive as they might be to the idea of taking children to such events. Will the Minister enter into a dialogue with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment, and with the teaching profession?
    Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are already engaged in close dialogue with friends and colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment.
    The right hon. Gentleman will have noted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to look again at the role of education for creativity in the curriculum, in response to the thoughtful and important report by Professor Kenneth Robinson and his group. He will also know of the establishment of the National Foundation for Youth Music and the additional resources from both the Department for Education and Employment and my Department that are being spent on music for schools.
    We recognise the importance of the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, and are already vigorously pursuing policies that I hope he will endorse.

    Social Exclusion (Sport)
    Maria Eagle: What steps his Department is taking to encourage the use of sport to combat social exclusion. [105939]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): The social exclusion unit's policy action team on sport and the arts, which was led by the Department, looked specifically at this issue, and is proceeding with recommendations made in the report that it launched in July last year.
    Sport England recently announced the designation of 12 sport action zones, which will aim to increase sporting participation and performance in areas of high economic and social deprivation.
    Maria Eagle: I welcome the establishment of a sport action zone in my city of Liverpool. Indeed, I know that it will be widely welcomed. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that girls in Liverpool, as well as boys, are encouraged to participate in the initiative and in sport?
    Kate Hoey: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the sport action zone. I know that it does not quite touch on her constituency, but I think that the whole of Liverpool will benefit.
    Persuading more young women to participate in sport is very important to Sport England, to schools and to everyone who cares about sport. There have been a number of initiatives; but one of the most important requirements is that no lottery money should go to any sporting project unless it can prove that it has an equal-opportunities policy, and that young women and girls in particular are being helped to become involved in sport.
    Mr. John Bercow: In the light of the Secretary of State's remarks to the Labour party conference about the unnecessary sale of school playing fields, can the Minister tell us in what circumstances she would judge such a sale to be necessary?
    Kate Hoey: The Government have a clear commitment to protect school playing fields. We have introduced a number of strong measures, because too many in the past were not working. The last Government allowed schools to sell off their playing fields willy nilly, when it suited them; indeed, they required the Government to sell off playing fields when they considered them to be surplus to requirements. The present Government have introduced new legislation requiring all schools to seek consent for the sale of playing fields. Sometimes it is a very balanced judgment.
    Sometimes, the playing field is sold to increase sporting opportunities, but, clearly, there is a balance to be struck. No one wants a kick-around area that young people can enjoy for play to be sold. The Government are delivering on their policy. We have not got it completely right. We are determined to ensure children's sporting opportunities will not be sacrificed through selling off playing fields.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that sport offers great potential not only for combating social deprivation, but for economic regeneration, not least in areas of high social deprivation

    767
    such as parts of Merseyside, south Yorkshire, Wales and Cornwall, which have been designated by Europe for objective 1 status? Does she accept that objective 1 money can give sporting projects in those areas even greater value? Given the resignation of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), partly because of a lack of match funding from the Treasury, can her Department ensure that money from the Treasury is maximised, so that European funds are taken up?
    Kate Hoey: The right hon. Gentleman knows that, as Minister for Sport, I have responsibility for many things—which I am learning—but that I do not have responsibility for many of the things that he has asked me about. I am sure that he would welcome the fact that the south Yorkshire coalfield area was one of the designated sport action zones. We are aware of the particular problems of coalfield areas and mining communities. Of course, any regeneration will be helped by the sport initiatives that we are putting into place, but I cannot answer his specific questions. I am sure that the Treasury Ministry would be delighted to answer his questions.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Why has not Sport England allocated funds to the eastern region in respect of the United Kingdom sports institutes? Does my hon. Friend realise not only that the region has problems of social exclusion—some deep pockets of it exist there—but that some of our finest athletes come from the region, and Essex in particular? Is it not about time that the decision was revisited, bearing in mind that it discriminates against my constituents and the people of six eastern England counties?
    Kate Hoey: Clearly, my hon. Friend knows that Sport England, even with huge amounts of money, could not possibly put institutes in every region and every part of the country. It is important that the institutes reach out to all parts of the country. I am aware of the talent in his constituency and in the region. Indeed, I shall visit his constituency quite soon. I am sure that he will be able to introduce me to some of the initiatives that his local authority is involved in to improve participation in sport in the area.

    Digital Television
    Mr. Tim Loughton: When he proposes to make an announcement regarding the charging of a supplemental licence fee for digital television viewers. [105940]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I intend to announce the Government's decisions on the recommendations by the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC shortly.
    Mr. Loughton: Before he does that, can the Secretary of State explain to my constituents why they should pay a television technology stealth tax to a state-owned broadcasting company, even if they choose to watch independent channels, as well as, we are led to believe, an above-inflation increase in the analogue television licence? Was the new BBC director general in favour of
    768
    a higher, or lower surcharge than the £24 that has been recommended, or was he too busy with his property company directorships to proffer a view?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is premature in making assumptions about any of the decisions that we may, or may not take on the matter. It was, of course, the Davies panel that recommended that there should be a digital supplement of £24 per year for those who use digital television. It is by no means guaranteed that we will accept that recommendation. We are considering it carefully. I remind him that at least 94 per cent. of UK households still view, or listen to at least two hours of BBC programming per week. The BBC is a major cultural institution. It produces programmes of unrivalled quality around the world. We should be proud of it.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Could my right hon. Friend explain how such a tax could be collected were it to be imposed? Are the lists of subscribers to OnDigital and Sky digital available under current legislation, or are they protected by the Data Protection Acts? If the latter, would primary or secondary legislation have to be introduced to make the lists available to the TV Licensing authority, and would such a process be subject to potential legal challenge by Sky digital or OnDigital?
    Mr. Smith: The answer to my right hon. Friend's specific question, on the lists of subscribers to both OnDigital and Sky Television, is that, currently, no legislative power exists for any requirement to be made for the making available of those lists. Points on the relative administrative ease of collection are among the considerations that we are taking into account in examining those complicated issues.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Can the Secretary of State explain the delay that has occurred in giving the Government's official response to the Davies report? Is it true, as newspapers suggest, that there are disagreements among Ministers on whether to accept the digital licence fee? [HON. MEMBERS: "Surely not."] Such things are suggested.
    I tell the Secretary of State that there is no public support for a separate digital licence fee, and that there is concern that it would be a type of second-rate tax. Would it not be more appropriate to examine whether the BBC could, from within its own resources, fund digital development, and perhaps to provide a role for the National Audit Office in that examination? If not, would it not be preferable to have a small increase in the normal licence fee, rather than a separate licence fee, to fund that development?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. The issues that will dictate our approach on the matter are the need to ensure continuation of high-quality broadcasting in the United Kingdom into the digital age; the need to ensure the best possible choice for consumers; and also the need to ensure best value for money for consumers. Those are

    769
    the key criteria that we shall wish to bear in mind, and the hon. Gentleman should not jump to conclusions before we have reached them.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of supreme importance that the BBC's position in the cultural life of the country be maintained and enhanced by any action that he may take?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the very great importance of the BBC in the United Kingdom's cultural life. I argue, and have often argued, that, in a multi-channel digital age, the BBC's role as our premier public service broadcaster and as provider of the benchmark of quality around which the rest of broadcasting should cluster becomes more important, rather than less important in the multi-channel age.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State is obviously having difficulty in making up his mind, but I have no doubt that No. 10 Downing street will be close at hand providing helpful advice on the matter. Does he think that a digital licence supplement would amount to a tax on innovation, which would be unpopular with broadcasters and viewers alike and that it would run completely contrary to this Government's and to the previous Government's commitment to encouraging digital take-up? Does he think that viewers will thank him if he rolls over in the face of the BBC's demands for extra money without even having bothered to sit down and work out the limits of what the BBC should be doing in a multi-channel age?
    Mr. Smith: It is precisely because we want to get the decision right that we are ensuring that it is taken in the right way. That is why we allowed a sensible period for consultation, took no decisions until the Select Committee had reported and put in Pannell Kerr Forster to examine in detail and very rigorously the BBC's finances and to advise us. It is in the light of all those representations, and particularly the views of the general public, that we are now considering most carefully how to proceed on the matter.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does not Greg Dyke have enough on his plate sorting out digital television and all the rest of it without being involved in share dealing in independent television companies and fiddling about with property companies and people who have been declared bankrupt? Is not the BBC a powerful organisation to which he should be dedicating all of his time, rather than moonlighting all over the place?
    Mr. Smith: First, may I say how wonderful it is to see my hon. Friend back in such robust form? I am certain that Mr. Dyke will wish to devote 100 per cent. of his time and energy to the task of running the BBC.

    Competitive Sport
    Mr. Robert Syms: What steps his Department has taken since 1997 to encourage competitive sport for children of school age. [105941]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): Competitive sport in school and between schools is one of the criteria
    770
    schools have to meet to be awarded a sportsmark, and encouraging inter-school competitive fixtures will be key part of the role of the school sports co-ordinators.
    We have also supported the Royal and Sun Alliance panathlon challenge, which supports inter-school competition between inner-city schools in London, Liverpool and Bristol.
    Mr. Syms: Why have the Government seen fit to scrap compulsory sport for children aged over fourteen? Given the problems of obesity and general fitness levels among teenagers, is not this an area where the Government should reverse their policy?
    Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this controversial issue. I am certain that we took the right decision as, at 14, many youngsters want to get involved in sporting activities that may not necessarily involve team competitions. We must make sure that team sport is still available in all schools for those who want it after the age of 14, and we must concentrate on getting the quality right at an earlier age.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: Is not it crucial to try to get children to participate in competitive sport or physical education as early as possible? Is not the work of the Youth Sport Trust a good example of the kind of work that needs to be done? More specifically, will the Department for Culture, Media and Sport work much more closely with the Department for Education and Employment, as that is the key to ensuring that there is a link between schools and competitive sport in the community?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right that the links between this Department and the DFEE are being strengthened. I am delighted that, just before Christmas, we were able to appoint Sue Campbell of the Youth Sport Trust to act as a cross-departmental adviser to this Department and the DFEE as we work to identify and build the links between the Departments, particularly in terms of the role of physical education and school sports, as that is the core of getting sport right in this country.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Before the election, Labour's sport manifesto promised:
    "We will tackle the decline in school sport by ending the sale of playing fields".
    How does the Minister reconcile that with the fact that, since 1 October 1998, no fewer than 101 out of 103 applications have been agreed? As one surveys the attack on competitive sport, the decline in sports participation in schools, playing field sales, Wembley and the delayed sports strategy, one must ask—has there ever been such a mixture of broken promises and utter shambles?
    Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman should concern himself with the real issues facing sport in this country, and he could then have a proper and sensible discussion. We have delivered on our manifesto pledge on playing fields. Clearly, a number were sold, but if he takes the time to look carefully at the cases, he will see that huge changes were made as a result of the involvement of Sport England and consultation with the local community. Concern will always be raised when some playing fields are sold off, but we are making sure that the money raised

    771
    from the sale of playing fields will be used for the proper development of sport. In most, if not all, cases, there has been a net benefit to sport or no loss of sporting amenity when playing fields have been sold.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend encourage the playing of rugby league on the playing fields that the Government will preserve, and ensure that the greatest sport in the world is promoted?
    Kate Hoey: Rugby league certainly has some ardent supporters in the House. Of course it will be one of the sports that will benefit from all our policies on more sport, more competition and more team sports in schools. It will be a beneficiary, just like every other sport.

    Air Passenger Duty
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: What discussions his Department has had with Treasury officials concerning air passenger duty. [105942]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): My Department regularly reminds the Treasury of the tourism industry's concerns about air passenger duty, at both ministerial and official level. Any decisions about the duty are of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his forthcoming Budget.
    Mr. Fearn: Does the Minister recognise that air passenger duty in the United Kingdom is the highest in the world and that it will provide £70 million to the Treasury in the coming year, on top of the £350 million that we have already lost through it? That £70 million could be used to exempt children from the duty. Will she urge the Chancellor to do that?
    Janet Anderson: As I said, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but we have regular discussions at both ministerial and official level about the importance of the duty for the tourism industry, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we take very seriously indeed.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend encourage the Chancellor to have a bit of hypothecation and use the money to train a few more skilled workers in the catering trades and to give them proper wages? If people, including those working in the House, got proper rates of pay, there might be greater expertise available.
    Janet Anderson: As my hon. Friend will know, we have been very encouraged by the participation of the hospitality industry generally in the new deal. Together with Springboard, the national training organisation, we mounted a careers festival last year, and another is coming this year, to encourage people into the industry, which has also signed up to the minimum wage and was represented on the commission that considered it.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister join me in hoping that, having recognised the principle of hypothecation in other transport sectors, the Government will use this opportunity to use the airport passenger tax to improve airports, bearing in mind that
    772
    many United Kingdom airports have taken an enormous cut in earnings because of the loss of duty free last year and that the tax is used in many other European Union countries to build new airports, as in Athens and Brussels?
    Janet Anderson: That is an interesting suggestion but, as I am sure that the hon. Lady realises, it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and for Ministers with transport responsibilities.

    Strategy for Sport
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: When he intends to publish the strategy for sport. [105943]
    The Minister for Sport (Kate Hoey): I hope to publish the sports strategy in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Wyatt: When my hon. Friend publishes the strategy, will it be fully costed and fully funded, and will it include details of the new opportunities fund with respect to green spaces? My constituency has very few green spaces and would love to buy up some brown ones.
    Kate Hoey: The new opportunities fund announcement will be made separately. Any strategy must take into account what resources are needed and where. The strategy will be a major statement about how we can bring together everyone working in sport and form a clear view of where we are going and the pathways from participation to excellence.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister confirm that the strategy was originally due at the beginning of last autumn and has been delayed time and again, and that one of the reasons is that when she took up her current ministerial role she found that the strategy had not been worked out at all by her predecessor, who we all know is far more concerned about football than about the other sports in which she takes an interest? Will she further confirm that the shambles over Wembley stadium is once again rearing its ugly head and that she has a great task on her hands in correcting the mistakes of her predecessor?
    Kate Hoey: The answer to all those questions is no. I do not feel that there has been any delay on the sports strategy. I took office in July and I wanted to talk to everybody involved in sport. I especially wanted to work with the Department for Education and Employment and other Departments, because it is important that we get the sports strategy right. It has taken a few extra months—the previous Minister hoped that it would come out in the autumn—but that will not make any difference, and may even be a benefit.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I have grown used to criticising Labour Ministers for delay, dither and indecision, but nothing better illustrates that tendency than the absurd delay in the delivery of the sports strategy. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said that it was due in autumn last year, but I thought that it was due as early as the spring. Summer and autumn came and went, and then we were told that it would be published in the winter. Then we were told it would

    773
    be early in the new year and now we are told in a few weeks or in the spring—again. However, given that the only substantive decision that Ministers have taken across the whole of their brief involves the fiasco of Wembley stadium, I say that they should carry on dithering. The last thing that we need is decisions from Ministers. Better still, it would be a relief for all concerned if Ministers made way for people who could get a grip on their brief.
    Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman should know that it would have been a fiasco if we had not made the decisions that we did about Wembley. Today is the first time that I have commented on the sports strategy to the House, and I have said that it will be out in the next few weeks.

    Sport (Television Rights)
    Mr. Andrew Love: What steps he is taking to encourage professional sports bodies to invest income from the sale of television rights in local and non-professional sport. [105944]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Many governing bodies have signed the Central Council for Physical Recreation's voluntary code, under which a minimum of 5 per cent. of broadcasting income is invested in grass roots development. The football authorities, in particular, have recently reaffirmed their commitments to allocating 5 per cent. of future broadcasting revenues in that way. The Government are in detailed discussion with them about how best to ensure that those funds are used to improve the development of grass roots football in England.
    Mr. Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and wish to draw his attention to the plight of Enfield Town football club, which was refused promotion because it lacked the finance to improve its facilities. Recently, it took the decision to sell its ground in the teeth of local opposition and it now has to play its home fixtures in St. Albans, which—frankly speaking—might as well be on the other side of the world. Does he agree that we need to ensure the redistribution of resources gained from television contracts to the grass roots, and that a deal providing a higher proportion would enable clubs such as Enfield Town to look forward to a more secure future?
    Mr. Smith: I say three things to my hon. Friend. First, St. Albans is a wonderful place—almost as wonderful as Edmonton. Secondly, the supporters of his local club might be interested in the initiative that we announced last week—the setting up of the supporters direct unit, which will encourage local supporters to take an equity stake in the ownership of their clubs. A line of finance is being made available by the Co-operative bank to ensure that that can happen. Thirdly, it is important that money flows from the top of football through the game to smaller clubs and grass roots football at school and park level. We are in active discussion with the Football Association and the Premier League on that issue and we hope to make some substantive announcements shortly.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: Should the television rights to racing be sold to the highest bidder?
    Mr. Smith: The television rights to racing are a matter for the racing authorities and the broadcasters to decide.
    774
    However, the listed events provision ensures that the Grand National must be shown on free-to-air terrestrial television.

    Tourism Summit
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: If he will make a statement on the matters to be discussed at the forthcoming tourism summit. [105945]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The tourism summit, set for 1 March 2000, will be a meeting of Ministers from a range of Departments whose responsibilities have significant implications for the development of tourism. Our agenda will include consumer issues and quality improvement, sustainability and transport, employment, and training and information systems.
    Mr. Marsden: Is my hon. Friend aware of how crucial for constituencies such as mine is the link that the Government have forged between tourism promotion and economic regeneration? Will she use the tourism summit to strengthen the message to her colleagues in other Departments that more seaside towns should be included in those areas receiving funds under the objective 2 and assisted area status schemes? Will she also make sure that the Treasury is aware of the benefits that it, too, might bestow on seaside towns?
    Janet Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to the assistance that we have tried to provide for seaside resorts, which is in stark contrast to the record of the previous Government. I assure my hon. Friend that the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury will be represented at our tourism summit. We look forward to pressing the case of resorts such as Blackpool and others then.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister, at the tourism summit or on another occasion, consider reviewing the very unattractive colour used in this country to point out major attractions? Will she see what she can do to come up with a new and more handsome colour that might be more in keeping with the exhibits that the signs point out?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the summit will discuss signage. I am sorry that he does not like the present colour of the signs. However, given the clamour for more of them around the country, I think that he is probably in the minority.
    Helen Jones: Will my hon. Friend also ensure that the tourism summit studies ways in which non-traditional tourist areas, especially those in places such as the north-west, can benefit from the tourism strategy? Many such places have good hotels, and their good transport links enable easy access to the tourism areas. Areas such as Warrington, for instance, may have a lot to gain from the tourism strategy.
    Janet Anderson: I have visited Warrington many times, and I agree that it has a great deal to offer. We are in the process of establishing the regional cultural

    775
    consortiums, on which tourism will be well represented. The consortiums will work in close conjunction with the regional development agencies to ensure that regeneration in the regions is taken seriously at all levels.

    National Lottery
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the geographical distribution of lottery funds. [105946]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Some regions have fared better than others from the lottery. Following the National Lottery Act 1998 and my revised policy directions, distributors must now take into account the need to ensure that all parts of the country have access to funding and the scope for reducing economic and social deprivation. Working with the lottery distributors, we have also commissioned joint research to establish what more can be done to help areas where the take-up of lottery funding has been low.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I thank the Minister for those assurances. However, is he aware of the frustration and anger in my constituency, because we spend 50 per cent. more than average on lottery tickets, but Rochford and Southend receive less lottery funding than almost any other area in the United Kingdom? In particular, is he aware that our pier—the longest in the world, and a very great one—was turned down for funding, whereas some rubbishy piers elsewhere received substantial amounts of money? I fully appreciate that the Minister is not responsible for handing out the funds, but will he let the distributors of the funding know that Southend-on-Sea feels that it has had a rotten deal so far, and that it is looking for an improvement?
    Mr. Smith: I am sure that the lottery distributors will have heard the hon. Gentleman's views loud and clear. I do not want to disparage the wonderful piers at Southport, Brighton and elsewhere, which have received lottery awards. However, the various changes that we have put in place, particularly those to ensure that the lottery distributors must take account of geographical distribution when making their decisions, will gradually take effect. That is why I was very pleased that the figures for the past year show that the number of small grants awarded by the lottery distributors, right down to community level and right across the country, has doubled in the past year. It is why I am also pleased that the figures show that, up to the end of the last financial year, 41 per cent. of the money from the lottery in England has gone to the 50 most deprived local authorities.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does my right hon. Friend know whether any Members of Parliament have said how grateful they were for money that their constituency has received from the lottery? I thought that I might have been in that position until I realised that my constituents in West Ham had spent more than £50 million. Any hon. Member who believes that there is
    776
    a metropolitan bias should examine the situation in London, because clearly there is no such imbalance.
    Would it not be helpful if Camelot told us how many winners there have been in each constituency? I do not think that there have been any large winners in my area of West Ham, and I should certainly like to set an example.
    Mr. Smith: I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that West Ham has received £10.7 million from lottery distributors over five years. That is almost bang on the national average.
    Mr. Michael Jack: It now appears that the lottery has become the easy bank for the millennium experience, and that Greenwich is receiving a disproportionately large amount of lottery money. Could the Secretary of State tell me, pursuant to his earlier reply, why £60 million may need to be made available to the dome? Is it because sponsors have not paid up? If it is because of falling ticket income, how on earth, in the remaining 48 weeks of its life, will the dome earn the £1.25 million a week necessary to pay back this sum of public money?
    Mr. Smith: I am delighted to tell the right hon. Gentleman that Fylde has received £11.8 million in lottery money over five years, which is of course above the national average. As for the dome, I have already explained that no application for additional assistance has been received from the New Millennium Experience Company. However, if such a request does emerge, we at the Millennium Commission will want to give the most careful scrutiny to the dome's finances, expenditure projections, income projections and ticket numbers before making money available.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: As chairman of the Millennium Commission, is the right hon. Gentleman not ashamed that, within a month of its opening, the dome has had to come back for more lottery money?
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Have you been to it?
    Mr. Ainsworth: Yes I have, thank you very much.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Who paid?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I did, and I am beginning to wonder whether it was money well spent. If even the sponsors are refusing to throw good money after bad, why should lottery players? How much money is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to squander on a life support system for the dome? By when must it be paid back?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman clearly has not heard what I have been saying. No such application has yet been received. All the surveys that have been undertaken, even by the most hostile of newspapers, show that, overwhelmingly, visitors to the dome have thoroughly enjoyed the experience.

    Millennium Commission
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: If he will make a statement on his plans for the money allocated to the Millennium Commission in future years. [105947]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): When the Millennium Commission's income from the lottery comes to an end, its share will be transferred to the new opportunities fund.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the best uses of millennium money has been to support the national cycle network, half of which will be opened this summer? Would it not be very sad if this exciting and permanent project were left half finished? Can he give me any encouragement that more money will be made available to complete it?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sustran is one of the best schemes that the Millennium Commission is supporting. By the end of the year, I believe, some 5,000 miles of cycle route will be in place from the very north of Scotland to the foot of Cornwall. When the Millennium Commission's work comes to an end, we hope that some of Sustran's work may be applied to the green spaces and sustainable communities initiative under the new opportunities fund, which we have established, and which every Conservative Member opposed.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Millennium
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What plans the Church Commissioners have to mark the millennium in 2000. [105967]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners have consistently encouraged every appropriate attempt to mark the millennium year as the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ. We all enjoyed the activities around new year's eve, even those around the millennium dome. However, churches will continue to stress the Christian story throughout the year, particularly during Pentecost—or Whit—weekend in June when hundreds of inter-church celebrations are planned all over the country.
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful reply. Does he agree that one of the best ways to mark the millennium would be to reduce value added tax on church repairs? Can he update us on whether the Paymaster General has had legal advice to the effect that we can offer a reduced rate of VAT on repairs to churches?
    Mr. Bell: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her tenacity. I raised the matter in an Adjournment debate in November, during which my hon. Friend the Paymaster
    778
    General referred to a forthcoming meeting with the Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies to review its research on how the VAT rate could be reduced at minimal revenue cost. The Church expects to participate in the meeting, and will continue to press a case for VAT relief on buildings. I shall ensure that the hon. Lady's point is included in the discussions.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: While we do not want any obelisk or granite block to mark the millennium, does my hon. Friend not think that the Church Commissioners should use every means possible to dedicate the millennium to peace and to avoiding a repeat of the follies of the 20th century?
    Mr. Bell: Yes. There was once a pamphlet titled "Peace, jobs and freedom", which someone said was better than "War, slavery and unemployment". The Church is naturally committed to peace and to promoting the message of peace. We shall ensure that we get that message across at home and in third world countries.

    Parishioners
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what initiatives the Church Commissioners are taking to make parishioners better informed of their work. [105969]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The annual report and accounts of the Church Commissioners are published in April and circulated to more than 1,000 people, including all Members of Parliament, senior officials at diocesan level, those closely involved with church finances and other interested parties. A summary version is circulated to all clergy and receives a wide audience among parishioners through those clergy.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that information. Is he satisfied that the Church of England communicates in the most effective manner with its parishioners in this age of the internet and electronic commerce? In short, is the Church into web sites and other new-fangled technologies?
    Mr. Bell: In time, the commissioners will have their own page on the Church of England web site. Work is in hand, and we plan to make a summary version of the 1999 report available via the internet. Information about the wider Church is available through the Church of England web site. As well as daily telephone and pager correspondence, we handle a substantial number of inquiries by e-mail.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Given the fuss made by a number of ecclesiastical figures about the content of the dome, has my hon. Friend visited the spirit zone, and have the commissioners found out where it is? Has any tally been kept of the number of clerics who have attended the spirit zone, given the fuss that was made?
    Mr. Bell: I have twice visited the faith zone—as it is now known—at the dome. I was there with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Church has been greatly

    779
    inspired by the contents of the dome—both by the Christian elements and by those of other faiths. The dome is a huge joy and achievement; I recommend any right hon. or hon. Members who have not yet done so, to visit not only the dome but the faith zone.
    Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Church Commissioners make it plain to parishioners why they are supplying chauffeurs to bishops at the same time that churches are crying out for investment and many clergy are living on a pittance?
    Mr. Bell: The question of bishops' expenses and expenditure is the subject of a review. When we receive the results of that review, we shall share them with the House.

    Church Buildings
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What recent representations the Church Commissioners have made to the Chancellor in support of the abolition of VAT levied on repairs or restoration of church buildings. [105970]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church's original submissions to the review of charity taxation highlighted the significant sums paid in VAT on repairs to working, listed church buildings. That burden usually falls on parishes, where most resources for local ministry and for building repairs are found by parish-based giving and fund raising. The imposition of VAT at 17.5 per cent. on church building repairs absorbs a large amount of locally raised funds and resources, for no local benefit.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, at the start of the third Christian millennium, it is both depressing and inequitable that £18 million should be paid in VAT on £123 million of church repairs at a time when domestic house repairs are assessed at 5 per cent? Will he urge his hon. Friends and the Church Commissioners to continue to press that point? He might even persuade the Primate of England to divert some of his formidable lobbying attentions from section 28 to consider a far more important issue.
    Mr. Bell: I shall not be led to discuss section 28 today. However, the points made by my hon. Friend on VAT on church repairs are being raised with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary—as are those that I mentioned in my response to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). We are seeking a meeting with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary.
    780
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) for confirming that £18 million of the £123 million that the Church spent on repairs was paid in VAT alone.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: From correspondence, the hon. Gentleman is aware of the problems with the major restoration of the parish church in Wem. We have trouble with SITA in organising a refund of the landfill tax. Will the hon. Gentleman personally organise a meeting of all the interested parties, so that that long-standing problem can be resolved?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that question on behalf of his constituents. I shall be glad to look into the matter and, if possible, arrange the meeting that he suggests.

    Religious Broadcasting
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: What recent representations he has received regarding religious broadcasting. [105971]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I am aware of the great concern among Church people and others as to the amount, content and scheduling of religious programmes. The General Synod is due to debate that matter at its February meeting.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that more people in this country attend acts of worship than football matches? Does he agree that that balance is not reflected in the priorities of broadcasters, which seem to be dominated by a laddish sports culture? Will he use all his powers to ensure that the depth and breadth of spirituality in Britain is properly reflected by the broadcast media?
    Mr. Bell: About 8 million people attend Church services throughout the year. Religious broadcasting helps to reflect the diversity of religious faith and experience to be found in our nation. As the recent report on the upper House made clear, religious and spiritual matters form an integral part of our nation's life; I trust that, in future, broadcasters will continue to make provision for that specialised coverage.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the broadcasters pay far more attention to religion and religious services than do the printed media? Can we encourage the latter to ensure that they report more of what is said by clergy of all denominations, rather than merely waiting for scandal or excitement?
    Mr. Bell: We should like to see newspaper coverage that is based on the facts and on the best aspects of the Church and other Churches, not on the negativism that we see so often in our newspapers.

Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has there been any indication that the House will hear a statement by a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry on the allegations in today's newspapers about tobacco smuggling and British American Tobacco—in particular, that its financial director, Mr. Keith Dunt, has been heavily involved in co-ordinating smuggling and tax evasion?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by Ministers that they seek to make a statement on that issue today.

Orders of the Day

  Utilities Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  3.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As hon. Members will know, the Government are committed to modernisation and reform in a whole range of important areas of public life. The Utilities Bill is part of that agenda of modernisation and reform. It will modernise and reform the utilities markets and it will deliver efficiency and fairness, bringing together social justice and fairness—two sides of the same coin. It puts consumers first and provides a basis for effective competition and a stable framework of regulation for the future. It will deliver essential reform of the structure and framework that was introduced by Conservative Members at the time of privatisation.
  The Conservatives' approach to the utilities owed more to dogma than to a real desire to raise standards for the consumers or to extend choice. The current ramshackle legislation does not effectively serve consumers, the business community or the utility companies themselves. It is simply not acceptable that consumers and business users should suffer from a rigged electricity market, but that is exactly what we have at present.
  It is not acceptable that consumers have no way of telling whether directors' pay in companies enjoying a monopoly position is linked in any way to service standards. Indeed, the Conservatives' approach on privatisation to the directors of the former public utilities was a Conservative version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" However, the directors of the privatised utilities certainly did not need to ring a friend—or, perhaps, they had rung a friend before.
  It is not acceptable that consumer bodies are so closely linked to the regulators offices that they even have to issue their press notices on headed notepaper from the regulators themselves. It is also not acceptable that decisions that shape the vital telecommunications and energy markets can be taken purely on the say so of an individual regulator.
  Fair and open utility markets are essential for business and domestic users alike. If we are to be at the forefront of the digital economy, businesses and consumers need access to cheap, fast and reliable telecommunications. They do not have that at present. If we are to have a fair society, we must ensure that everyone has heat and light in their homes and access to new technology. At the start of the 21st century, it is simply not acceptable that too many people struggle to keep warm in their own homes.
  The Conservative Government's approach to the utilities was to privatise them quickly, and that was driven by dogma to such an extent that precious national assets were sold at a knock-down price without real concern for the industry and the structures that were put in place.
  Mr. Nick Gibb: Given that the price of electricity has fallen by 29 per cent.

  783
  in real terms since privatisation, that the cost of gas to consumers has fallen by 29 per cent. in real terms since privatisation, and given that there has also been a fall in the price of telephone charges to the consumer of 50 per cent. since privatisation, does the right hon. Gentleman now regret the Labour party's opposition to those privatisations in the 1980s?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman misses the important point that although those price reductions are welcome, they would have been far more substantial if the structure that the Conservatives put in place had been different. This afternoon, we shall see an example of that because the Bill contains proposals to change the way in which electricity is traded; as a result, prices will be reduced by 10 per cent. Since privatisation, people have been paying 10 per cent. more than they needed to pay because of the way in which the policy was introduced by the Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman makes my point: it is because the policy was driven by dogma that consumers have not fully benefited from the changes.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The point raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) is interesting because it brings us into the discussion about BT and its charging structure. How is it possible for BT to charge, for long-distance calls in the United Kingdom and for overseas calls, often three times more than independent operators? How can Sky, through Skytalk, charge for local telephone calls about half of what BT charges, while BT turns over profits of about £3 billion a year? BT is grossly overcharging on all its calls and on internet access.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend, as always, makes a powerful and significant point, and I shall make sure that the regulator's attention is drawn to it. I have no doubt that the best way to reduce the costs and charges of companies such as BT is to introduce effective competition. We all know from the experience of the United States, where telephone charges are considerably lower than in the United Kingdom—particularly for the important service of internet access—that we need to ensure that the regulator takes into account the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
  Mr. John Butterfill: Is the Secretary of State aware that not all commentators who have studied the new electricity trading arrangements share his confidence that they will result in a further 10 per cent. fall in prices? As I hope to explain later, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, Professor Bunn of the London business school thinks that prices will rise, and his is by no means a lone view. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that we would have achieved the reductions that have occurred if we had carried on with his beloved Central Electricity Generating Board, under which prices went up every year?
  Mr. Byers: The Bill does not seek to recreate the Central Electricity Generating Board. We are trying to introduce new trading arrangements. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: one or two commentators are critical of the new arrangements. We have consulted widely on the new structure and, broadly speaking, most commentators believe that the arrangements will achieve
  784
  a minimum of a 10 per cent. reduction in the wholesale price of electricity. In 12 months, we will be able to debate the matter knowing exactly what has happened as a result of the changes. We are confident, because of the advice that we have received, that the changes will achieve that reduction.
  Later, I shall explain why the operation of the present system is fundamentally flawed and that by introducing a more effective market discipline we shall achieve a reduction in the wholesale price of electricity. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there is a debate about the benefits that will accrue from the new trading arrangements.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of the previous, privatised regime was not only the costs themselves but the distribution of costs? One of the worst features of privatised utilities under the Conservative Government was that the distribution of costs in the energy industry was skewed against low-income households. For example, the standing charge was one of the ways in which low-income households paid, per unit of electricity or gas consumed, far more than better-off households.
  Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating British Gas on announcing its intention to abolish the standing charge? Will he encourage other suppliers to follow that lead, not only in abolishing the standing charge but in ensuring that there is a much fairer tariff, so that low-income users—
  Madam Speaker: Order. That is a very long intervention. The hon. Gentleman might like to save himself to make a speech during the debate.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) may not need to do so now, Madam Speaker. He raised two important points, the first of which relates to where the benefits of price reductions have gone. The price reduction that those who pay by direct debit have been able to achieve has been far greater than the reduction for those who have a pre-payment meter. There are concerns about that. My hon. Friend will know that we are introducing measures, through the Bill, that will enable us to ensure that all people can benefit from the price reductions that we are confident we shall achieve.
  Secondly, my hon. Friend draws attention to the initiative from British Gas to end standing charges. I welcome that, provided that there is a real choice. Standing charges may go, but we must consider the unit cost that will be paid as a result. I would like to see a competitive market where the consumer has a genuine choice. It will be of benefit to some low-volume users to opt for a tariff that does not include a standing charge. That will not be the case for other consumers. Consumers should be able to choose the tariff that they want.
  Mr. Norman Baker: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about fuel poverty, and we all support him in his efforts to eradicate it. However, will he say something about the environmental implications of the Bill? Does he accept that it presents an opportunity to increase the amount that is spent on energy efficiency and

  785
  to require, for example, generation from renewable energy? What will we be able to do through the Bill to improve the environment?
  Mr. Byers: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a few minutes, I shall specifically address those matters in dealing with the environmental consequences of the Bill. I shall deal specifically with renewables.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to my constituents and to constituents throughout the country that the regulator will examine the way in which the utilities reduce consumers bills? Many of my constituents have received vastly overestimated Bills. When they have complained, their complaints have been ignored. Many pensioners have paid those bills in fear of being cut off.
  One couple, Mr. and Mrs. Balchin of Chatham, complained time and again for two and a half years, but little was done. Eventually, and understandably, they chose to take their business elsewhere. When they telephoned the company, they were told that it would take £4,000 to pay off or clear their account. When they questioned that, they were told, "No, it will be £4,100." It has been possible to intervene and get a fair deal, but what assurance can my right hon. Friend give that that sort of thing will no longer happen?
  Mr. Byers: One of the important initiatives that will stem from the Bill will be far more powerful consumer councils. My hon. Friend has raised exactly the sort of issue that these councils will be able to address. Most importantly, they will have access to all the information in their own right, for the first time. It will not come through the regulator. They will be able directly to contact the regulator and draw the attention of the new authority to the sort of practice to which my hon. Friend has referred. It will then be for the regulator and new authority to take the appropriate steps. I am sure that my hon. Friend has raised exactly the sort of matter that the new independent consumer councils will wish to take up.
  I shall try to make some progress. The previous Government's approach did not put the interests of the consumer first. There was no commitment to give the consumer a good deal.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: Disconnection affects the poorest people. Does the Secretary of State agree that during the last years of the nationalised electricity industry, there were 80,000 disconnections a year? Last year, there were only 373. When the right hon. Gentleman makes carping comments about what he inherited when he took office, does he not recognise that there is a vast difference between the way in which the poorest people are treated now that we have a privatised industry, compared with their treatment under his much preferred state industry?
  Mr. Byers: The important point, as the hon. Lady will concede—this may be why she confuses nationalisation with privatisation—is that most companies in both the public and the private sectors now have a different approach to debt collection than they had 10 or 15 years ago. In the utilities sector, good practice is being adopted
  786
  across the board. That is the truth of the matter. The situation reflects the changes in debt collection that have occurred.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: On disconnection, is it not the case that just as many people are being disconnected as ever before, but that they are doing so themselves through their inability to pay their bills or to purchase charge cards and the like?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. By its nature, pre-payment means that many people who cannot afford it in the first place do not get access to energy. That is reflected in the figures as well.
  The previous Government failed to introduce effective competition and created a system that was unstable. The result was that prices were higher than they needed to be and consumers were regarded as second-class citizens. Directors could end up getting vast amounts of money simply from being in the right place at the right time.
  Furthermore, as regards energy in particular, the system that was set up paid almost no attention to environmental or social issues. Under the previous Government, the utility companies were allowed to put profits before service. They were generally sold as monopolies, with no provision for additional competition, making it difficult for new entrants to enter the market.
  We need only look at the knock-down prices for which those national assets were sold. Vickers and Yarrow calculate that British Telecom and British Gas were undersold by £2.5 billion each, and Ernst estimated that the water and electricity privatisations were underpriced by £3.4 billion each—a total of £11.8 billion lost to the taxpayer because dogma was allowed to triumph over reason.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Minister accept that one of the reasons why the prices obtained for those privatisations were not as great as we might have wanted was that in the prospectus a clause had to be inserted stating that the Opposition were totally opposed to the privatisation and might well reverse it? What effect does the Secretary of State think that had on the share price?
  Mr. Byers: Absolutely none. Anyone who looked at the opinion polls in 1985–86 would have guessed the result of a 1987 general election.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Over the past few years, most of the privatised utilities have faced new entrants and new competition. Which utilities does the Secretary of State consider remain monopolies facing no competition?
  Mr. Byers: As a result of the measures that we are introducing, there will be none. Telecommunications is a good example. Through the auction for the third-generation mobile telephones, new entrants will enter the market because of the way in which the auction is operated. British telecommunications is one of the sectors that will be affected by the Bill.
  Not only was there an underselling of the assets contained in the utilities, but the electricity trading arrangements made by the Conservative Government put

  787
  in place a system that has failed to give consumers the benefits of effective competition. I shall give the House an example of the way in which the present arrangements work and why we need to change them.
  Let us assume that the generators want to put in bids for up to 1,000 MW of power. Through the pool, the National Grid Company stacks up the bids, with the lowest at the bottom and the highest at the top. If it decides that only 500 MW is needed, the price in the middle that achieves 500 MW is the price paid to that generator, and to all other generators as well. Even though they may have put in lower bids, they are paid at the level of the generator that could deliver 500 MW.
  As a result, we are paying over the odds for electricity because of the way in which it is traded. The regulator has calculated that the complicated pool bidding arrangements allow companies to manipulate the price. For example, he believes that last July, the generators were able to raise the price by more than £155 million over two weeks. That is the equivalent of £6 for every household in the country. The Bill will end those abuses.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I hope that my right hon. Friend will address another problem. Companies knock on people's doors to offer the so-called cheapest electricity and gas, but there are no clear guidelines about which company is the cheapest. Can he ensure openness about the cheapest product on the market and that there will be no misleading salesmen on the doorstep?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises two important issues. First, it is important to ensure that the domestic consumer in particular receives clear information. Our consumer legislation will introduce provisions to help consumers, and to ensure that companies are under an obligation to prevent mis-selling. We are all worried that mis-selling has occurred, and the regulator will be able to levy financial penalties for it in future.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) pointed out that most utilities face competition, and that people knock on doors to offer alternative sources of supply. Apart from water, which utility does not face such competition?
  Mr. Byers: I do not believe that effective competition exists in the telecommunications market. My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) made an important point about mis-selling. Many consumers do not transfer from one provider to another; there is resistance to doing that. We need to consider ways in which we can encourage people to benefit from competition. We want to introduce effective competition. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is terribly complacent if he believes that it currently exists. We can, and should, try to do better. The Bill tries to achieve that objective. Introducing effective competition is the best way of putting consumers' interests first.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: I have given way often, and I want to make progress. I should like to give way to the hon. Gentleman later. I am sure that there will be many occasions on which he will want to intervene.
  788
  We inherited a fundamentally flawed system. Our first action was not to rush into legislating, but to consult widely on the structures that would fulfil the needs of consumers, be good for business and provide a stable framework for utility companies. Extensive and wide-ranging consultation has taken place.
  In March 1998, we published the Green Paper, "A Fair Deal for Consumers—Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation". In July 1998, we published a "Response to Consultation", which set out our conclusions about the way forward. Two further consultation documents were published in autumn 1998. One covered the detailed arrangements for establishing independent consumer councils; the other dealt with the future of gas and electricity regulation. The Government published responses for consultation on those further documents. At each stage, we have tried to explain our thinking fully and to engage the sector in a debate, a dialogue and a discussion about the way forward.
  Consequently, we have built and maintained support for the Bill from a broad cross-section of interested parties. We have the support of consumer groups, the regulators and the utility companies. The Electricity Association welcomed our commitment to
  "ensure … stability, which is in the interests of companies and customers alike".
  Callum McCarthy, the energy regulator, welcomed the Bill as laying down
  "a framework for future regulation that will reinforce competition, which has led to lower prices and better services for gas and electricity customers".
  He welcomed provisions,
  "which will underpin changes in the electricity market needed to bring the full benefits of competition to electricity customers".
  The National Consumer Council said that the Bill
  "has the makings of a significant landmark for consumers … Giving the regulators of these industries a primary duty to protect consumers is an enormous and welcome change."
  I have a few words about the Bill's format. I appreciate that it is quite complex and rather technical in many areas, but it is set out sector by sector. For example, reforms to gas and electricity regulation are in part I and reforms to telecommunications regulation in part II. However, a significant number of the provisions are identical or very similar for each sector—that has been done on purpose to achieve consistency across regulation—and they include the establishment of consumer councils, the new powers for regulators to impose financial penalties on companies and the improvements to the transparency and consistency of regulatory procedures. Where it is appropriate to adopt similar measures for each of the utility sectors, that is exactly what we have done.
  In addition to the measures that apply to all four sectors, part I contains significant sector-specific reforms to modernise and align gas and electricity regulation. Part III contains a more limited number of water-specific provisions and part IV deals with the Competition Commission as an effective appeals body.
  Mr. Bercow: Did an accidental oversight lead the right hon. Gentleman to fail to mention the observation of the outgoing Director General of the Office of Water Services, Mr. Ian Byatt, who has damned the Bill as over-complicated and over-prescriptive with too little left

  789
  to common sense? To what figure does he expect the 2,800 regulations that have come from the Government to increase as a result of its draconian provisions?
  Mr. Byers: I read the comments of Ian Byatt, the water regulator, with interest and am disappointed that he has been so critical. I should have thought that most regulators would support our approach of an arm's length relationship between them and the Government.
  Mr. Bercow: Not him.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman is right, but Mr. Byatt is the only regulator who is uncomfortable. I regret that we have not taken him with us and hope that his successor will be more supportive of the proposals. I am sure that he or she will be.
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Will my right hon. Friend also take account of the briefing from Ofwat's national customer council? It says:
  "We consider that there are shortcomings in the Government's proposals which mean that the Consumer Council for Water will not be as independent and powerful as possible".
  We need effective, independent consumer champions and the customer council seems to be asking for more powers rather than fewer.
  Mr. Byers: There may be concern about whether the Consumer Council for Water has fewer powers, but the structure of the independent consumer councils and the powers that they will have represent a significant advance. I accept that concern has been expressed, particularly about water, but hope that as we take the Bill through the House people will see exactly what the Government propose. I also hope that we can address those concerns and convince them of the steps that we are taking.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose—
  Mr. Michael Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall give way once more, to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Kirkwood: The Secretary of State said that there had been extensive consultation before the Bill's publication. That is accepted on all sides, but has he reflected the degree of concern, which I have picked up, about the six-figure salaries that some utility directors have acquired? The moves to link transparency on financial packages to service delivery are welcome, but would not it be better to have separate remuneration package votes at each annual general meeting to make sure that people know exactly what is going on?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The House is considering specific proposals for greater transparency for the utilities in respect of directors' remuneration and the service standards that
  790
  they provide. Given the concern expressed about the remuneration of directors in the utilities sector, we thought it appropriate to use the Bill as an opportunity to take specific powers.
  Wider consultation is still taking place about directors' remuneration in all companies. When we have considered the responses that we receive, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's proposal will be one of the issues that we shall want to examine; but we want to examine the remuneration given to all directors, not just those in the utilities.
  Mr. Butterfill: Might it not be right to adopt the suggestions made by the National Association of Pension Funds in its response to the Government consultations, relating to corporate governance and approval of the work of the remuneration committees of the companies concerned?
  Mr. Byers: That is an important point. We have discussed with the National Association of Pension Funds and other institutional investors how we can deal with concerns about the remuneration of directors. I hope that, when we respond to the consultation document—which I trust we will within two or three weeks—our response will command broad support among such organisations.
  The Bill has four main objectives: to secure a fair deal for consumers, particularly the disadvantaged; to provide more effective competition in the utilities markets; to ensure that the utility sector contributes to environmental objectives; and to modernise the regulatory framework, making it more consistent, transparent and accountable.
  The Bill seeks to put the consumer at the heart of utility regulation. We believe that competition is the best way of serving consumer interests, but in some areas it is not yet an effective discipline. In those areas, we will pursue tough but fair regulation in the interests of consumers; in areas in which competition is developing, there is still work to be done in ensuring minimum standards of service and building consumer confidence in the new competitive markets.
  The Bill contains a package of consumer measures. It requires regulators to put consumers first; it enables regulators to impose financial penalties on companies for non-compliance with service standards; it includes measures to encourage shareholders to link directors' pay with service standards; and it establishes independent consumer councils to act as consumer champions. It gives regulators a new primary duty to protect the interests of consumers. To build consumer confidence in the utilities, we need minimum standards of service in both the competitive and the monopoly markets.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I hope that I shall be able to do so later, when I have made some progress.
  The Bill will fill an important gap by allowing regulators to impose financial penalties for breaches of licence conditions, other obligations and service standards. Those penalties will be used to address company failures such as the mis-selling mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley, interruption of supply, and delays in reconnection.

  791
  Several Members raised directors' pay. I want price-regulated utility companies to make a clearer link between directors' pay and the achievement of service standards. The Bill will apply pressure on utility companies to link directors' pay with the level of service provided, by requiring price-regulated utilities to publish the links—if they exist—between directors' pay and the service level achieved. Such transparency is necessary if the regulatory system is to be seen to serve the consumer interest, and, in the long term, it is also in the interests of the companies themselves. If consumers see directors awarding themselves high salaries when service is inadequate, that will not benefit utility companies.
  The Bill, however, is about more than "naming and shaming". It provides real incentives for directors to give customer service standards the priority that they deserve. We have already urged the regulators to take account of levels of consumer service and satisfaction when setting new price caps, and the new powers to impose financial penalties will focus minds yet further. Shareholders will see that it is in the interests of the company to demonstrate a clear link between directors' pay and the achievement of service standards.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised the importance of a voice for consumers being effective. Consumers need powerful champions to articulate their needs and interests. Under the current regime, which was established by the Conservatives, consumer bodies are too closely related and connected to the regulator. They have few rights and no guaranteed access to information to discharge their powers fully.
  The Bill will establish independent consumer councils for each sector to act as effective consumer champions. More important, they will be independent of the regulator. They will have rights of direct access to the information that they need from the regulator and the utilities to carry out their functions effectively. They will be charged with investigating and resolving complaints. They will provide a single point of contact for consumers. That will end the uncertainty about who consumers should turn to for assistance and advice.
  Mr. Chope: Where in the Bill is there any provision to deal with a situation where the consumer interest is opposed by the Secretary of State himself? He will know that Mr. Callum McCarthy has said that the Secretary of State has been acting against the interests of consumers in imposing restrictions on new gas-fired generation. How will consumers be protected from the anti-consumerism of the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. There is a responsibility on the holder of my office to ensure that there is diverse energy provision. We believe that, by ensuring that a stricter gas consents policy is in place, we can have that diversity of provision. As he knows, there is not a level playing field at the moment. Coal in particular is discriminated against. We have introduced as a short-term measure the stricter gas consents policy to ensure that we can achieve a level playing field. We hope to do that as soon as possible, but he is right: it has those adverse consequences.
  The holder of my position has to balance the needs of the consumer with the objective of having a diverse supply of energy and take a judgment accordingly, but the
  792
  hon. Gentleman is right to point out that that policy has been criticised by the regulator. There will be an arm's length relationship between the Secretary of State and the regulator, but the Secretary of State will continue to have to act in the wider national interest. Obviously, I hope that we will be able to avoid those few situations where there is a conflict between the two.
  The independent consumer councils will be a powerful voice for the interests of consumers. I am pleased that their establishment has been welcomed by consumer groups themselves. Rodney Brooke, chairman of the National Electricity Consumers Council, welcomed the fact that the Bill
  "promises better protection and lower prices for consumers … we look forward to the creation of a new independent Consumer Council to represent the interest of electricity and gas consumers and to help them with their complaints."
  The National Consumer Council has said that it
  "is particularly pleased that the establishment of independent consumer councils is among the key planks of this consumer-friendly Bill".
  Therefore, there has been a wide welcome from consumer groups.
  I am conscious that one particular concern—it has been raised by some of my hon. Friends—is the position of people who are in fuel poverty. The benefits of competition should be enjoyed by all consumers, not just a few—not just high-volume users, but all people, including those who find it difficult to pay high energy prices.
  That is why we have instructed the energy regulators to draw up a social action plan that is aimed at securing efficiency, choice and fairness for the disadvantaged. The Bill backs that up by giving Ministers reserve powers in the energy sector to lay regulations to reduce price differentials between the users of particular payment methods, such as pre-payment meters and frequent cash-payment schemes, and other consumers who might use cheaper payment methods. That goes to the heart of the issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. We need to ensure that all people benefit. As a result of the Bill, Ministers will have a reserve power to intervene if it is essential to do so.
  For the first time, all the regulators will have a duty to consider the interests of low-income consumers. The Bill will place regulators under a duty to have regard to statutory guidance issued by Ministers on the social objectives relevant to their particular sector.
  The Government took office with a commitment to promote competition wherever possible, and the Bill continues with that objective. We regard regulation as being second best. However, in these sectors, with their monopoly history, network industries and elements of natural monopoly, regulation will still be needed.
  When we took office, competition in energy was not adequately developed. There were questions about whether competition in electricity would happen at all. However, companies got the message loud and clear and have begun to operate in a manner that allows competition to be far more effective.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: No. I have given way on many occasions and want to make some progress, and many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.

  793
  The Opposition spent years talking about reform of competition law, but did nothing. They have also resisted some of the measures that we want to introduce to ensure that competition is effective. Nevertheless, we have got on with it. In one month, the provisions of the Competition Act 1998 will come into force and ensure that effective competition is introduced into the utilities and into many other sectors. The Utilities Bill takes further action to secure more effective competition in the utilities market, particularly in energy markets.
  The current electricity pool bidding arrangements allow manipulation of prices. The pool is more of a price-setting mechanism than a true market. It supports the exercise of market power by generators and is not open to consumers. The Bill will introduce powers to replace the pool with a new, market-based system that will encourage genuine competition in the wholesale electricity market.
  Mr. Gibb: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that there is still a role for the regulator when the utility sector involved—even if it is a narrow one—is fully exposed to fierce competition?
  Mr. Byers: There may be a limited role, but it would depend on the specific circumstances. As a general rule, my personal view is that regulators are not appropriate in those circumstances, and I should much rather have the discipline of an effective market. However, there are concerns that, in some of the spheres dealt with in the Bill, the market is not effective.
  We have to put in place a structure that will provide an effective market, which is what the Bill seeks to achieve. A good example of that are the new electricity trading arrangements that we are seeking to introduce, and that we believe will lead to a 10 per cent. reduction in the wholesale price of electricity. I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton will welcome that. I was looking at the figures supplied for the east midlands public electricity supply area—which covers Rutland and Melton, and in which he has a personal interest—[Interruption.] I cannot go through all the electricity supply areas in which he may have a home or two, but he stands to benefit enormously from the Bill's provisions.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell rose—
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) probably also stands to benefit from the provisions.
  Mr. Stunell: I was planning not on making a regional point to the Secretary of State, but on asking him whether he shares my belief that the market is a very efficient mechanism for promoting efficiency of generation, but not for promoting efficiency of consumption in the energy market? Does he believe that there is a long-term role for the regulator in those circumstances?
  Mr. Byers: The Bill's provisions to address energy efficiency and renewables are probably the better way forward. In line with the observation that I made to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), we need to consider carefully the spheres in
  794
  which regulation is appropriate and the spheres in which it is not appropriate. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove is taking me down a route that I feel is not appropriate for the regulator.
  As for the electricity bill paid by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton—which I am sure is paid not only promptly, but by direct debit—on his home in the east midlands, he would stand to gain about £25 annually. Although I realise that that sum is probably insignificant to him, it would be a very useful reduction for many people.
  There would be a useful reduction for some of our major companies. Companies such as BOC are likely to save £5 million a year as a result of the Bill's proposals, and high electricity users such as ICI are likely to save between £5 million and £10 million a year. That will make business more competitive—an important consequence of the Bill.
  Hon. Members have asked how the Bill will protect the environment. I accept that, at the beginning of the 21st century, we need to recognise that environmental concerns cannot and should not be ignored. The energy and water utilities have a big impact on the environment, and they have a big part to play in the achievement of our environmental objectives. The Bill contains provisions to ensure that the utilities contribute to the achievement of our environmental objectives, and to put an end to the confusion that we inherited from the previous Government about the respective responsibilities of Ministers and regulators for environmental matters.
  The Bill gives Ministers powers to make regulations to set targets for energy efficiency and the generation of electricity from renewable sources. Those matters will be the responsibility of Ministers, and we will be politically accountable for the regulations. This will contribute to our target of ensuring that 10 per cent. of electricity supply comes from renewable sources.
  Joan Ruddock: I remind my right hon. Friend of the Government's target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide and the renewables target of 10 per cent. Will he use the powers in the Bill to ensure that the utilities make a real contribution to those targets, because half of greenhouse gases come from the supply and use of electricity and gas? Will he consider the possibility of the gas and electricity consumer councils having not just a brief to look at energy efficiency, but a duty to report on overall environmental performance?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises a number of important points. I will consider her idea that there should be a duty to report, as that is well worth detailed investigation. She is right to point out the important contribution that those sectors can make to achieving our environmental objectives. It is for precisely that reason that we feel that a power should be given in the Bill to Ministers to achieve those environmental objectives. The utilities could play a damaging role in stopping us achieving those objectives. On the other hand, if we get it right, they could make a real contribution. That is a role that we will expect them to play.
  That is a responsibility that will fall on Ministers. The Bill also places regulators under a duty to have regard to statutory guidance issued by Ministers on environmental objectives relevant to their sector. It clarifies the role of Ministers in relation to environmental policy. The Bill

  795
  gives Ministers powers to initiate service standards in the water industry, primarily for health and environmental matters that are outside the scope of the economic regulators' remit.
  The Bill is forward-looking. It sets out a new framework for utilities regulation that is fit and appropriate for the 21st century. We have consulted widely on the Bill's measures, which are seen by regulators, consumer groups, the regulated companies themselves and others as sensible, balanced and fair.
  The Bill establishes a stable, modern framework in which the respective roles of Ministers and regulators are clear, precise and transparent. It gives new duties to the regulator, and it places responsibility on the regulator to put the interests of consumers at centre stage. It gives more power to the consumer councils to represent the interests of those people affected by these vital utilities.
  The Bill establishes a framework that ensures a fair balance between the needs of consumers and the legitimate interests of the utility companies. I am confident that it will promote high-quality services for consumers, put downward pressure on prices and promote further and more effective competition in utility markets. The Bill puts utilities regulation on a sure footing for the 21st century, and is good for consumers, good for competition and good for the utilities.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.20 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Utilities Bill because, although it contains worthwhile provisions for merging the electricity and gas regulatory authorities, for separating the licensing of supply and distribution of electricity and for introducing new electricity trading arrangements, it also contains measures which increase regulation and intervention by government in the utility sector; which impair transparency and accountability in the regulatory framework; which add to industry costs which will ultimately be passed on to consumers; which introduce powers to levy unlimited fines; and which significantly undermine the independence of the regulators."
  Regulation under the Telecommunications Act 1984, the Gas Act 1986, the Electricity Act 1989 and the Water Industry Act 1991 was established when the industries were privatised under the previous Government. The appointment of an arm's-length regulator, independent of Government, was intended to leave management free from Government interference. We wanted to prevent a read-across from the Government to the regulator and thence to the privatised industries and the services that they provide.
  The idea was to promote a competitive market and to protect consumers' interests in the areas where competition had not yet developed or where natural monopoly was likely to remain. An effective regulatory regime—necessary to secure increased efficiency, lower prices and better quality—could be promoted through competition and protecting consumers' interests in markets that were still dominated by powerful incumbents and in which there were still large elements of monopoly.
  Clearly, things have moved on since that time. I thought that the Secretary of State was somewhat churlish about the genesis of privatisation in this country. We pioneered
  796
  it in the face of opposition from Labour and, often, Liberal Members, not only to the benefit of this country but in a way that has now been emulated throughout the world.
  It was recognised from the beginning that a regulator would be necessary as a substitute for competition, especially where monopoly elements existed—for example, in the ownership of pipeline and wires—to protect the consumer. Conservative Members have had no problem, right from the beginning, in recognising that a regulator is necessary and should remain in the industries for some time to come.
  I was interested to hear what the Secretary of State said in response to the question whether in a truly competitive environment regulators would be needed for ever. I hope that Ministers will outline in more detail at what point they believe that regulators would become unnecessary. The Bill shows clearly that they regard regulation as necessary, although in need of change.
  There are parts of the Bill with which we do not disagree. I shall set out in some detail those parts that we hope to be able to support, provided that we have enough information from the Government, and those about which we have real concerns, as outlined in the reasoned amendment.
  Since privatisation, monopolies have broken down. It has happened more quickly in some industries than in others but, since the laws were enacted, competition has encouraged investment and benefited consumers so that industries that for many years were a drain on the Exchequer now contribute to it.
  Prices have dropped. Domestic electricity prices have dropped by 29 per cent. in real terms since privatisation; the same figure applies to gas; and there has been a 50 per cent. fall in the cost of telecoms. Privatisation, which has been such as success, was not only opposed but criticised by Labour and Liberal Members.
  For example, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said of gas privatisation:
  "16 million British Gas consumers can expect only one result—to pay increased gas prices, higher than the rate of inflation, for years to come."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 793.]
  How wrong he and the many others like him were when they flagged up how damaging privatisation would be for the consumer, and that has been demonstrated since. The present Prime Minister also made an interesting comment on the subject of the privatisation of electricity, when he said:
  "the idea that we will have an influx of power stations, all competing on the grid, is nonsense."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 683.]
  How interesting that his Secretary of State today introduces a Bill that seeks not to reverse those Conservative policies but to take them forward for the next generation. He would not have been able to do so had he and his hon. Friends won the vote back in 1988.
  The Bill is a classic example of new Labour in power. Yet more regulatory powers will be put on the statute book—we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill in detail in Committee—but many of the powers will be introduced as secondary legislation. All too often, the House is denied the opportunity to scrutinise the real detail and the impact that Government legislation will have on the industry sectors and on consumers.

  797
  I thought that it might be helpful if I first set out those areas of the Bill on which, at first sight, we might support the Government.
  Mr. Bercow: Before my hon. Friend talks about those areas on which we might agree with the Government, does she agree that it is all very well for the Secretary of State to prate on in a self-satisfied fashion about the new powers that the utilities will be able to exercise, but that it would be wiser for him also to take account of the fact that those new powers will expose the utilities to additional regulatory risk and, therefore, to an increase in the cost of their access to capital?
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is right. When I have dealt with the issues on which there may be some common ground, I shall deal with those areas of concern, especially the issue of regulatory risk, which has been flagged up by many in the industry and could feed through into consumer prices.
  We believe that we can support the merger of gas and electricity regulators, as outlined in clause 1, and the merging of the respective consumer bodies. I hope that the Secretary of State will take some comfort from that. It seems inevitable and the practical way forward. It also reflects the emergence of the two energy interests, as competition has enabled them to compete and to target the same customer base. Privatisation has helped to break down the barriers between the two sectors.
  On the reform of the electricity pool and trading arrangements, we have some concerns, but—in principle—it is worth detailed scrutiny in Committee. The contracts between the suppliers, the regional electricity companies and the generators are different from what they were in 1981 when energy was privatised. The Bill's proposal for a bilateral system of contracts between regional electricity companies and generators, to be diversified over time, can be supported provided that the Government get it absolutely right. The Secretary of State will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) intervened in his speech to outline some concerns that the industry has expressed about the proposed 10 per cent. reduction in electricity prices that the Government believe will result from those changes.
  The Government will also need to look carefully at the disproportionate cost that will fall on the shorter-term arrangements. I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the suggestion from Professor Richard Green of Hull university that the sale of generating capacity by PowerGen and National Power could make the electricity market more competitive. However, Professor Green does not believe that the new trading arrangements will achieve that.
  It is very important when reforming or updating the arrangement—or modernising it, to use new Labour parlance—that the Secretary of State listen to the concerns that I have raised. The Opposition would like to support the proposals, but not if they give with one hand and take away with the other.
  Mr. Byers indicated assent.
  Mrs. Browning: The Secretary of State is nodding, and I am grateful for that constructive indication that we may be able to make progress, perhaps in Committee, on this part of the Bill.
  798
  Separate licensing for distribution and supply is to be welcomed, but I hope that the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, when she winds up the debate, will give the House more details about how renewables will be handled. We welcome in principle the proposal that a percentage of renewables will be required, but I hope that the Minister will underline that there will be fairness in that regard.
  There is much interest and investment in renewables, especially among smaller companies that need to be sure of their longer-term planning. When arranging their borrowing and investing, they need to be clear about what the Government have in mind. I understand that the Government intend to remove what was known as the NFFO—the non-fossil fuel obligation—round of competitive bidding for contracting in renewables. Such bidding was especially intense for start-up capital for new firms in the sector and for those involved in research and development and in bringing forward new ideas.
  The detail of the Government's proposals in that regard will be especially important. In principle, it appears that the Government have acknowledged the difficulties associated with handling renewables, but I hope that the Minister, when she winds up, will fill in the gaps that remain in respect of individual companies.
  I turn now to those matters about which we are genuinely uneasy. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said about wanting to support consumers and to ensure fairness in the consumer market. We share that objective, but the Bill gives huge regulatory powers to the Secretary of State, as well as more powers to the regulator. It is not clear from the Bill where the line of disaggregation will be drawn between what the Secretary of State demands that the regulator do and what discretion the regulator will retain. No doubt some of that will come to light as we scrutinise the Bill, but we are worried about the principle involved in the additional powers that the Bill proposes.
  As for environmental and social policy, there is some disquiet about how the regulator will assume powers and ultimately make apparent policy decisions that hitherto would have been the responsibility of Ministers. The regulator is not answerable to the House, but he will assume—or be forced to assume—responsibility for political decision making. Some of the decisions will have to do with controversial matters with which I am sure the Secretary of State is familiar.
  The regulator will be the person charged with putting those decisions into the public domain. Therefore, the Bill will transfer political decision making—and thus accountability—from a Minister accountable to the House to a third party outside the House. Perhaps I might identify, using the experience of one of the Secretary of State's ministerial colleagues, how that might have had the same read-across had a regulator been involved in policy decision making about the ownership and use of the motor car. Had the Deputy Prime Minister, at the beginning of this Parliament, been able to instruct or ask a regulator to make policies on environmental grounds about the usage of the motor car and the environmental considerations attached to it, he could have sidestepped much of the controversy that surrounded that decision making.
  I am particularly anxious that powers that we would normally have expected to decide, challenge and debate in the Chamber will, under the Bill, be sent elsewhere

  799
  without the requirement for such accountability, and with the regulator having to take what hitherto have been seen as ministerial decisions.
  Mr. O'Neill: The hon. Lady is talking about a point that occurred to us in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry when the last gas regulator came before us. Mrs. Spottiswoode quite frankly refused to have anything to do with social obligations and the financing of any undertakings that they might require, on the grounds that she did not run the Department of Social Security and that such obligations were not in legislation so she was not required to do anything. The Bill will require the regulator to take account of those obligations and to follow what seem to be instructions, subject to statutory instrument, by the Secretary of State. This is a means of addressing a shortcoming in the legislation which the previous Government put into place.
  Mrs. Browning: I can understand the hon. Gentleman having a legitimate concern, which we all share, about some of the social problems involving people who have difficulty paying for, or run into difficulties with, their supply contracts for services as essential as water and fuel. However, the present system has seen significant reductions in price and in the number of disconnections.
  I am not saying that there should be no change; I am simply concerned, bearing in mind that this has been the hallmark of the Government to date, that regulation through secondary legislation—the Bill shows that many of the powers will be dealt with in that way—will mean that there is no Committee stage in which hon. Members can challenge and question the detail of where the balance is to be struck. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that such a balance is required regarding the appropriate power of a regulator.
  I said at the beginning of my speech that the previous Government recognised that, when it came to privatisation, a regulator was needed, and that part of the regulator's job was to take account of the consumer, particularly on pricing. It is a matter of great concern if we do not have the necessary information when the Bill is being scrutinised in the House.
  I should like to quote PowerGen. Having heard the Secretary of State's remarks, I realise that he may believe that anyone who is subject to the regulator should not be quoted in the House. The tone of his comments was that their views were perhaps of less importance than anyone else's. However, this sets out quite clearly PowerGen's concerns—which we share—about the way in which the Bill is presented. PowerGen says:
  "The Bill will, however, substantially add to the powers of the Secretary of State (through a wide range of secondary instruments) and the regulator to intervene in the electricity and gas markets and to impose new requirements on companies. These have the potential to increase significantly the costs and risks of business operating in or considering entry to these markets, notwithstanding the intent of the Bill to create more stability. There is a concern that these powers could be used in a way which will de-stabilise the regulatory regime, increasing costs to companies and working against the long-term interests of customers. It is therefore essential that these powers are used in a consistent, non-discriminatory way within a clear policy framework and that significant decisions by the regulator and the Secretary of State are subject to full consultation, with independent routes of appeal where appropriate."
  That takes us into the detail of how powers will be implemented and scrutinised. Such information should be available to the Standing Committee. It is not
  800
  unreasonable of us to ask for an independent route of appeal. How will the Secretary of State disaggregate those areas of enforcement and legislative powers that will be devolved to the regulator from those areas in which he will retain powers to introduce statutory instruments in order to instruct the regulator? Giving the regulator an option is quite different from giving an option that allows the Secretary of State subsequently to take powers in secondary legislation or instruct the regulator.
  A balance must be struck. Matters may have to be dealt with case by case, but the House must, at an early stage, receive information on the means to be used. Let us consider the case of a regulator instructed by the Secretary of State—statutorily obliged, therefore, to implement the instruction—who knows from experience of the industry involved that regional differences exist and that legislation may have different effects. As a south-west English Member, I think particularly of water. All south-west Members have made known to the regulator and Ofwat our views about what we think right for our consumers.
  As a Member of Parliament, I should like to think that I can continue to do that. My constituents may suffer effects different from those in other regions. If the regulator has been instructed by the Secretary of State, he will not have the flexibility that he currently has to use his own judgment and common sense to bring fairness—the very thing that the Secretary of State says that he wants—to the means by which matters are dealt with. I fear that the Bill is both over-regulatory and too rigid. The Secretary of State should accept that we shall wish to consider those matters in much more detail in Committee.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, West and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) raised the clear concern that the Secretary of State's proposals may increase regulatory risk. If what is imposed is so punitive that it increases regulatory risk, the cost to industry of increased capital borrowing will eventually filter through to consumers. A failure by the Government to do their homework on the Bill could prove counter to consumer interests. The Government must make sure that they take soundings and calculate exactly what any such filtering would mean.
  The Conservatives may be forced to oppose the Government, simply on the grounds that the Government have not done their homework properly. If consumer interest lies at the forefront of the Bill's objectives—as we hope it does—the Government must try to carry out suitable investigations. Many interested bodies are sending the signal that that will be a possible consequence of over-regulation and the attendant costs.
  The Secretary of State referred to the powers of the consumer councils. I have great concern about the councils, not least because of the United States experience. The councils will need to ensure that we do not end up with what is known in the US as the act of gaming, where people seek information and put it into the public domain simply to undermine those against whom they will be competing for customers or bidding for contracts. What checks and balances does the Secretary of State propose to ensure that that situation does not arise? If the consumer councils are to be the custodians, on behalf of companies, of information that could be quite market sensitive, and if they then put that information into the public domain, the measure should include provisions

  801
  to ensure that the councils do not create difficulties that would not only affect the companies involved, but could damage the consumer in the longer term.
  Mr. Byers: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I support her comments. We are aware of the American experience, whereby people try to acquire confidential commercial information by using what appear to be reasonable and legitimate powers. We were intending to deal with that issue in Committee. I am delighted that the hon. Lady will be able to engage constructively with us when we discuss the means to overcome the particular problem that she has identified.
  Mrs. Browning: That is most encouraging. We look forward to hearing how the Secretary of State will resolve the problem.
  There is a real danger that the regulatory over-prescription of the measure will mitigate against the interests of the consumer.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter not merely of over-regulation but of overlap of regulations? Does she agree that there are real concerns in the telecommunications industry—especially on the part of BT—about the overlap between the consumer councils and the regulating authorities? Is she aware that that will impose extra costs on telecommunications companies and that those costs will inevitably be passed on to the consumer?
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes a timely and accurate point, as I was about to raise that issue. The costs of the Government's proposed changes must be considered. The costs of setting up, or changing, the councils and of related aspects of the measure must be taken into account, however well intentioned such provisions may be as protection for the consumer.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the overlap of regulations. I would have thought that the Government would be especially sensitive to that matter, not least because they have just set up yet another Cabinet Office Committee to try to reduce the amount of regulation for which they are responsible.
  I draw the Secretary of State's attention to clauses 9, 13 and 90, for example. We need far more detail about those clauses before we consider them in Committee. They contain the potential not only for over-regulation, but for the addition of further costs that will eventually filter through to consumers.
  I do not doubt that, despite his rather caustic remarks about the success of privatisation, the Secretary of State's heart is in the right place and that he wants to protect consumers. However, in order to do so, he will have to provide much more information, or the measure will damage consumers in the long term. My hon. Friends and I put him on notice that we hope that he will provide that information. We have heard that many new clauses are likely to be tabled, and we shall have an opportunity to scrutinise them only when the Bill is in Committee. If the new clauses lead to reform and take account of the points that are made in this debate, we shall welcome them.
  802
  However, we are concerned that the Secretary of State will make it an even bigger Bill than the one that we have seen to date.
  The House is discussing the changes to the regulators for what were the nationalised industries only because of the Conservative party's great success in the 1980s. We had the vision, the foresight and the market sense to recognise that this country needed to enter the new millennium with industries that provided a good deal for the consumer, that attracted inward investment, that allowed members of the public—including their work forces—to invest in them and that contributed to the Exchequer and were not a drain on it.
  All that was opposed, and I notice that the Secretary of State criticised some of the privatisations and the price tag attached to them. He accused the Conservative party of underselling many nationalised industries, but I hope that he will recognise that his words have been carefully noted. In particular, we shall watch very carefully to see at what price National Air Traffic Services is sold. We hope that he will sell it at a realistic price if he can get the proposal through the House, but I see that he looks rather doubtful about that.
  We welcome the fact that, at long last, new Labour is a convert to privatisation. It will privatise NATS and all but privatise the Post Office. In fact, if new Labour is in government long enough, which I doubt, it will take the Post Office to full privatisation and we welcome that. If ever a sinner repenteth, he will receive warm words from Conservative Members.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill: I notice that the hon. Member for Rutland and wherever else—[HON. MEMBERS: "Melton."] I knew that it had something to do with one confection or another. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) will remember the passage of the Gas Act 1995, which had innumerable new clauses and umpteen late explanatory notes. It is in the nature of this type of Bill that such amendments will emerge. If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) expects many new clauses to be tabled to this Bill, may I tell her that that is nothing new—and it is certainly nothing new from the Department of Trade and Industry?
  Mrs. Browning: I have a huge respect for the hon. Gentleman's experience of such matters, but he will acknowledge that, when the Conservative Government privatised industries, we were pioneers. There is a difference between being a pioneer and being a Government who have learned from the dozens of privatisations that have already been carried out.
  Mr. O'Neill: I do not want to sustain this argument, but the Gas Act 1995 was the then Conservative Administration's second attempt to get gas privatisation correct.
  I hope that the Government will establish a consensus and secure the broad support of most of the parties involved. The Bill is long awaited. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry reported in 1997 before the general election and we had a Green Paper and the consultation and responses to it. It is regrettable that the Bill was not introduced earlier, but its complexity and substance have made it well worth waiting for.

  803
  It is legitimate to go over the arguments that relate to the privatisation of utilities that began in 1985. In large measure, the Conservatives used privatisation in the attempt to raise revenues, and precious little thought was given to the more important issue of liberalisation. If there was a fault in state monopoly, there was an even greater fault in the creation of private monopolies with regulatory processes that involved, to say the least, a very light hand on the tiller.
  At that time there were arguments about price cuts and share prices, and in the 1990s the issue of fat cats arose. Directors' pay crystallised several issues. The fact that the cost structures of the privatised companies needed trimming was probably not in doubt. Most redundancies were voluntary and in large measure were smoothed by generous payments.
  The achievement of even minor efficiencies in many of those organisations was not difficult, and when they were realised, in what was then a monopoly market, they often had a disproportionate impact on profits. It is little wonder, therefore, that the understandable initial caution of the regulators in price setting, combined with the savings that they were able to achieve, resulted in a leap in profits and in the share price.
  Mr. Gibb: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that goes to the heart of the privatisation policy, in that most people—the City of London, Members of the House and experts—underestimated the efficiencies that would be delivered by moving those companies into the private sector. Does that not demonstrate how inefficient industries are when they are left in the state sector, and how successful privatisation has been?
  Mr. O'Neill: There are a number of arguments about the cost-cutting that took place. In the past week the National Audit Office has suggested that the cost-cutting undertaken by British Energy and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, which was done by outsourcing services, has resulted in a diminution in the quality of service and, on some occasions, in safety issues.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend recollect, as I do, that in the early 1980s, owing to Conservative policies, domestic gas prices were put up by 10 per cent. more than the rate of inflation for three years running? The savings for which the Conservatives are claiming credit therefore simply reduced prices by the amount by which they were put up, which is, one might say, robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  Mr. O'Neill: It is fair to say also that, at that time, price increases helped to reduce much of the companies' debts, and gave them the necessary degree of elbow room.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. O'Neill: I want to make progress because I am conscious that many people want to speak.
  Those savings and changes did not prevent fortunate managers and directors from securing remuneration packages—a combination of pay, share allocations, share options and bonuses—that were far in excess of what anyone might reasonably support.
  804
  We were told, and have been told again today, that taxpayers were no longer supporting those companies. However, British Telecom and the gas and electricity companies were not subject to great subventions from the Exchequer before privatisation, although they were during the period when their debts were being written off. By and large, however, they were pretty efficient in meeting Government standards.
  One could argue that those standards were lax. It took six years for the Conservative Government to think of privatising British Telecom, so they were not that quick to recognise the apparent problem.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention the Central Electricity Generating Board, which was subject to very heavy Government subvention, as of course he will remember.
  Mr. O'Neill: I remember the CEGB and the South of Scotland electricity board, too. One of the problems in the structure of our electricity generation was that, whenever one of our national flag carriers did not have enough orders for power stations abroad, it went to the CEGB, which went to the DTI or the Department of Energy and asked, "Can we build a power station, because there is a generating equipment company that needs orders?" There was a circular movement, and the private and public sectors were virtually indistinguishable because of their interdependence and their desire for Government support whenever they could get it.
  Cynics could say—I include myself among them—that if shares are sold off at too low a value, their valuation is bound to increase if large sections of business debt are cut away. Performance is sure to improve if management then introduces efficiencies, and in this context these were efficiencies that the treasurer of a bowling club could have identified and carried through. In the circumstances that I have outlined, costs fall and profits rise. If the businesses concerned operated monopolies, or at least oligopolist markets, there would have been the need for price regulation of a toughness far greater than that which we saw in the early stages of the post-privatisation period.
  We saw prices fall after regulatory reviews. Probably we all remember the 1993 electricity price review. The cuts were so ridiculously low that the greatest impact was on the company's shares, which rocketed. The regulator had to return to the matter the following year and take a second bite at the cherry. If anything discredited regulation, it was the ineffectiveness of the then regulator.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that none of these discussions or future price cuts would have occurred had the companies not been moved into the private sector? We would have had year-on-year increases, as we had until privatisation took place. Can he not just admit that point?
  Mr. O'Neill: No, I cannot just admit that point. I am not prepared to accept that argument when we remember comparable companies elsewhere in Europe, which charge lower electricity and gas prices than those charged in the United Kingdom, and which are still in the public sector.
  There is nothing intrinsically good or, in many respects, bad about privatisation in this context. However, if privatisation takes place and we allow monopolies to

  805
  shamble on as they did until the late 1990s, it is possible that there will be gross distortions in the market and gross abuse of power. That was evidenced by the introduction of a windfall profits tax by the Labour Government, about which there was precious little complaint. I have always wondered whether that tax was a bit too low. It has not dramatically affected the performance of the companies concerned or their capability to continue to reduce prices.
  We must recognise that utility businesses, by their very nature, are long term: they are safe. We heard the special pleading of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton in the context of the PowerGen press release. Any regulation and toughness that applies to PowerGen will have an element of novelty. The returns of its shareholders and of the shareholders of other utilities have been far in excess of the performance of the FT index over the years.
  In other countries where utilities are quoted and traded and where markets are operating, their performance in stock market terms is far more modest than that of utilities in the United Kingdom. It is not the intrinsic efficiency of the UK that leads to the figures for our utilities being so much higher than their counterparts elsewhere. The reason is the weakness of the regulatory system, in its varying forms. Another factor is the personality of the regulators, on occasion. Sometimes they were scared to go in too hard because they interpreted too weakly the powers that had been determined by legislation. On other occasions, they were naive and had the wool pulled over their eyes.
  There was the Littlechild experience, which could be described as naivety. On the other hand, there was the experience of James McKinnon in the gas industry. He was faced with the arrogance and obstructionism of a privatised company which refused to provide him with any information and treated him with contempt. However, he stuck to his last. He did not do so from any left-wing populist standpoint. James McKinnon was a regulator who was prepared to take on one of the great energy companies of the world and beat it in a number of areas. He did so with little or no support from the Government of the day. Sadly, that approach was not sustained by his successor.
  We must get away from the personalisation of the regulatory system. That is why I recommend that, within the regulatory structure that the Government are putting forward, there should be a more collegiate approach. In addition, there should be a requirement on the director general, who is responsible to his college or board, to produce a clear programme of work. That is what Don Cruickshank did when he was at the Office of Telecommunications, but no one else did. Others merely had vague ideas of what they wanted to do.
  The shambles that for a considerable time surrounded the liberalisation of the electricity market was due to the fact that the Conservative authors of the idea did not make it clear whether the Secretary of State or the director general was responsible for the liberalisation of domestic electricity prices. As a result, none of the companies moved in that direction for years, and it took my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) to come
  806
  to office, knock heads together and finally get things moving. The liberalisation took place, with all the attendant problems.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman has been extremely generous in giving way again. He will remember that the evidence given by consumer groups to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, on which he and I serve and of which he is a distinguished Chairman, was against the idea of a board of regulators—a committee form of regulation—and that most of them took the view that it was better to have as a regulator a single personality, particularly a strong personality, because more would be achieved that way.
  Mr. O'Neill: I think that the consumer organisations were wrong there, and I believe that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are of the same mind as I am. Over-personalisation is a draw-back.
  The Bill is complex, and we could all make long speeches about it. I welcome the recognition of the fact that the gas and electricity sectors should be combined. I welcome the clarification of the social and environmental aspects of regulation. I have been extremely frustrated by the opportunities taken by obtuse regulators to reject the notion that there is a social dimension to their responsibilities.
  Those who believe that regulation will wither away like Lenin's state will probably have to wait as long as people in the former Soviet Union had to wait for the withering away of at least part of the state. When environmental targets are adopted, as they were at Kyoto and subsequent conferences, and when the screw is turned, it will be important for the Secretary of State to be able to oblige the regulator to take that into account.
  If excesses, profiteering and price fixing occur, as will happen in any business if people can get away with it, it is up to the regulator to exercise a degree of social discretion. However, it is not the responsibility of the regulator to run a social security system. That is the responsibility of Government, but it is the responsibility of a regulator to take account of the fact that, when price structures work against vulnerable sections of the community—not just the sick or the elderly, but the poor—we must allow some blurring of costs and some creative bookkeeping, to make sure that the poor are protected.
  The services in question are not services that people can decide to have or not to have. It is not a matter of digital, colour or black and white television. There is no such choice when it comes to water, gas or electricity, and in most cases a telephone is required in a household. It is therefore not good enough to suggest that it will impose a massive burden on the regulatory system if it acquires social responsibilities which the Conservatives were never capable of imagining.
  We must recognise that there is a broad sweep of regulatory concern and of concern on the part of consumers. Apart from the people who pay for fuel through meters or charge cards, there is an even spread of switching across social and economic groupings. People are interested in trying to get a better deal. It is important to consider the consumer properly. Even now, people are backsliding, for want of a better expression.
  The director general of telecommunications told the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which I chair, that there was a great scheme whereby people who were

  807
  on-line could key in details of their bills and requirements and be told which company was the cheapest service provider. No company puts on its bills guidance about access to that information. Poor people in my constituency are not currently on-line, but providing the telephone number of the call centre, which will be on-line soon, would be helpful. Nobody is interested in providing that number at the moment. I hope that the regulator and the consumer council will identify such issues.
  I am worried about the exchange between those on the two Front Benches about providing information. I can envisage companies hiding behind commercial confidentiality—that most elastic concept—thus leading to difficulties in providing proper information to the consumer councils and in getting it into the public domain. As the Chairman of a Select Committee, nothing galls me more than receiving information that I cannot put in the public domain, when I believe that it should be there. In most instances, the competitors know about it; if they did not, they would not last long in business.
  The Bill gives grounds for hope and a constructive approach to the future. It is encouraging to get a better trading system to end the abuse of the market, which has been the hallmark of the pool system. Between 70 and 85 per cent. of all price spikes are created by two or three companies. Seventy-three per cent. of price spikes used to be the responsibility of two companies. A wee bit of oligopoly was introduced to the market, the figure increased to 83 per cent., and the abuse about which the Secretary of State spoke took place.
  New electricity trading arrangements will produce an improvement to 20 per cent., or 10 per cent. The latter would mean only 5 per cent. of a domestic bill, because generating costs constitute only half a domestic bill. We do not want to get carried away about what will happen, but I hope that the Bill will improve transparency and fairness. I appreciate that the matter is controversial. When two economists and a computer consultant are in the same room, and four people who have not been invited in are outside, there will be 12 different arguments. We are perhaps suffering from that.
  Discussions of the Bill will be long and complicated, and I am pleased that I have failed to convince anyone that I was prepared to serve on the Committee that considers it. I have previously served on Committees that considered similar measures, one of which was only a quarter as complicated as the Bill, and I recognise the difficulties. Several issues will emerge only as consideration progresses. Some of the comments by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton were correct, but the fact that we do not have all the information is a feeble reason for opposing the Bill.
  The social action plan, produced by the director general for energy, will be central to dealing with fuel poverty. The first draft is not very good, and few people are happy with it. It requires much work. The director general for energy is examining the matter, and proposes to produce an amended version before long. My colleagues on the Select Committee and I want to spend time interviewing him and discussing it. I hope that we shall be able to do that in time to assist Report and Third Reading, if not the Standing Committee.
  We are considering complicated and difficult issues, and we have a duty to ensure that we take the right steps. We have a liberalised system for selling electricity and
  808
  gas. We also have a complicated series of markets in telecoms, where we are still bedevilled by the presence of the 16-tonne gorilla in the front garden in the shape of BT, and the water system is not yet in any way competitive. Work will have to be done there, but 15 years after making the first stumbling attempts at raising revenue through privatisation we are getting to a stage at which we can have utility services that are not publicly owned, but are at least publicly accountable and required to satisfy consumers.
  I have spoken almost exclusively about domestic consumers, but industrial consumers are as important, if not more so, because they create the employment and the wealth that our people require. We have to recognise that a great number of our constituents are either shareholders or pension scheme members who have a vested interest in the continued success of those companies. We do not want the companies to be punished, but nor do not want them to engage in the profiteering and aggrandisement that were the hallmarks of the fat cats in the mid-1990s.
  I wish the Bill well. It is exciting and worth while, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to count on the support of so many of us in the Lobby tonight.
  5.16 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: As one of the economists in the Chamber, I hope that I shall not distress the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) by complicating the arguments even further. In the broad sweep of the debate, the key fact is that after three years of Labour Government we are not considering a Bill to renationalise water and electricity. The Secretary of State is honest about his reappraisal of the arguments on public ownership, which is extremely important and to his credit. It would help the debate if there was open-mindedness on all sides because this issue is not best discussed in an atmosphere of ideological tribal warfare.
  Experience of privatisation has been mixed. There have been success stories, but also a lot of blemishes. It is best to be frank about them. The Bill does not deal with the railways, but I find it difficult to believe that anybody would argue that privatisation has helped any public transport user. All kinds of questions have to be asked about some of the supposed success stories. For example, BT is regarded as a top company with world-class management and a history of reducing prices to consumers. Most people consider it to be one of the more successful privatised utilities, but why did the number of telephone disconnections rise from 330,000 to 700,000 between 1995 and 1998? Some people are disconnected because they are careless, but large numbers are low-income consumers—many of them elderly—for whom access to telecommunications is a lifeline. BT's aggressive, commercial approach to generating cash often causes considerable social distress. The company is not universally a success story. The telecommunications industry is high-tech, costs are falling everywhere, and even France Telecom, which is nationalised, is experiencing falling prices. The story is mixed.
  Under privatisation, British Gas and Transco have produced a professional operation in many respects and their prices are also falling, although that is partly due to the availability of gas upstream. However, since 1995 the number of consumer complaints in the gas sector has risen

  809
  from virtually nil to about 70,000 because of aggressive marketing. The complete collapse of the labour force, which is down from about 94,000 to 34,000, is another feature of the industry since privatisation. A large section of the British Gas maintenance labour force has been disbanded. Some though not all of that may be due to efficiency measures, but any hon. Member who has had a problem with a gas leak or tried to have a central heating boiler installed will know that, post-British Gas, we have rapidly found ourselves in the heartland of rip-off Britain as freelance plumbers with poor standards have replaced a somewhat slow but generally reliable system. There is a downside to the increased efficiency of British Gas.
  In the case of the water utilities, the benefits are even harder to identify. Before Ian Byatt got stuck in last year, water prices had risen by an average of 55 per cent. since privatisation, with relatively little compensating advantage. It is a very mixed story.
  However, let us look to the future. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) presented her argument in a somewhat ideological spirit, but the issue that she raised—that of regulatory risk and its effects on the cost of capital—is crucial. I broadly support the Bill, and will vote for its Second Reading, but we must try to ensure that the pendulum does not swing too violently towards tougher regulation.
  When utilities were under-regulated, they were often sold at undervalued prices. The pendulum has been swinging in the other direction, in many cases rightly. There has been tougher regulation: the windfall tax was introduced, and we now have tougher social and environmental regulations. The Bill will provide a tougher system of licensing and fines. It is tempting to say that the utilities deserve it—that they had it easy, and that now the authorities are getting tough with them. That is an understandable human reaction, but there is potentially a high price to be paid.
  If the pendulum swings too far, equity prices may collapse, as has already happened with water and the railways. That will make it difficult to raise risk capital, and the utilities will have to borrow. They are already highly geared in many cases, so they pay a high premium on their borrowing costs. We are beginning to see that happening in the market now. It means that the utilities must either stop borrowing and underinvest—in which event we shall experience shortages in the future—or continue to borrow, with the result that future generations must pay through higher charges.
  Regulatory risk is a real issue, and our attitude to the Bill will be governed partly by how the Government handle it. Some subtle but important questions will determine how well they do handle it. There is, for instance, the question of how they deal with fines. Large fines may be right in some cases, but it is important for fines to be imposed only when there has been negligence, or a deliberate intent to abuse the powers of the utility concerned. There must also be a proper system of appeals. If the balance is right, the arrangement may be acceptable, but regulators cannot be allowed to impose fines indiscriminately under an opaque system of regulation. Furthermore, we need a proper system of regulatory impact assessment to govern what will no doubt be a
  810
  swathe of secondary regulations following the Bill's enactment. If we do not get the balance right, more harm than good will be done.
  The key new element embraced by the Government is competition, taken in conjunction with the Competition Commission's new powers for utilities. In principle, it is right for there to be more competition—I welcome that general slogan—but the detail does not always make it clear what the commitment to competition actually means. There is, for example, an interesting disparity, which has not been explained, between the energy sector, in regard to which the Bill is committed to facilitating competition, and water, in regard to which it is committed to encouraging competition wherever possible. In the case of telecommunications, there is an odd exemption providing for the continuation of appropriate distortions. It is not clear why certain industries have been allowed to insert these words qualifying the provision for competition, although no doubt it will become clear as we work our way through the clauses.
  I have a more fundamental problem with simply accepting the competition slogan as the be-all and end-all of the new approach to the utilities. Competition may well be desirable—it often is, in fact—but in some cases there is no competition, and is not likely to be; there is a natural monopoly. There can be common carriage in the water pipeline system, the ring main and the electricity grid system. Those are natural monopolies, and they will always need regulation.
  More important, the way in which competition operates in relation to many of the products that we are discussing does not provide some of the advantages of a competitive market. Throughout the Secretary of State's speech the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) heckled, saying that electricity, water and gas were just like any other commodities. They are not. Electricity and gas contracts are very complicated: we know that, because 30 or 40 per cent. of those who change their suppliers opt for the first who telephoned them. It is rather like buying a private pension or an insurance policy. They are complicated products. Similarly, in many cases there are costs in switching those items. If people buy into a year's contract, they will not know what will happen next year. Charges may improve dramatically.
  In many ways, the competitive market for gas, electricity and water, and the market for financial products, are analogous. One of the things that we recognise and which the Government have recognised in the Financial Services and Markets Bill is that, although it is important not to overregulate the wholesale bit—the City—it is important to have a tough and quite detailed regulatory system for the final products.
  I think that the Government have recognised that by giving consumer councils strong status in the Bill. That is right. I take issue with Conservative Members emphasising the danger of consumer councils leaking information. There is a genuine problem, which the Secretary of State acknowledged. If consumer councils become a source of information that can be used for competitive positioning, it will be dangerous—but there is a greater danger that consumer councils will be starved of information.
  The Bill contains a gagging clause on the consumer councils. What will happen if there is a conflict between a consumer council's demand for information and a

  811
  regulator's willingness to release it? Who will be the final arbiter? Much detailed argument will be needed to ensure that the balance is right. There are concerns not simply about the competing company aspect, but about consumer protection.
  Leading on from that, there is the issue of the social justice agenda and how the Government are using the Bill for that purpose. The hon. Member for Ochil has said that, in general, the utilities are not a branch of the Department of Social Security and that other mechanisms have to be found to deal with poverty and inequality, but I welcome the fact that clause 109 introduces the principle that the utilities have an obligation towards people on low incomes, pensioners, the rural population and others.
  I am not clear why the Government have been quite far-sighted in that respect in the Utilities Bill, but the Treasury has categorically ruled out any concern with social welfare in respect of financial services. A parallel debate is taking place. The issue might arise tomorrow during consideration of the Financial Services and Markets Bill. There is a problem of joined-up government, or perhaps there are different styles.
  Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. Apparently, the Treasury will encourage something called social banking, which seems to go against what he has said.
  Dr. Cable: That may be the case, but I have tabled an amendment, which may be debated tomorrow, that suggests that the financial services regulator—the Financial Services Authority—should have an obligation towards low-income consumers. If what the hon. Gentleman says is right, I hope that the Government will concede generously. So far at least, there has been a disparity in approach.
  This is an important area. Many people are hurt by fuel poverty. As the debate proceeds, we will want to know more concretely exactly what clause 109 will mean. There are a number of issues: disconnection; whether utility companies will make provision for charge cards that people have to use for pre-paid supply; how easily those can be obtained; standing charges for low users such as pensioners; and people on low incomes who have high energy bills, often within badly insulated homes. Those issues have to be dealt with. It is important that we make it clear how far the obligations of the utility regulators will take those considerations into account.
  As I understand the Bill, there are some interesting and useful bits of parliamentary accountability. Clauses 9 and 13 suggest that new regulations will have to be considered by the House in a quite innovative way. That is positive, but the Government may be missing an opportunity to build in a much stronger system of parliamentary regulation.
  Occasionally, utility regulators appear before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and they are investigated by the Public Accounts Committee. I have seen at first hand, on the Select Committee on the Treasury, the record of scrutiny of the Bank of England. In many ways, that scrutiny arrangement is an ideal model that the utilities should follow—with confirmatory hearings of the regulators or, in the water industry, the regulator, plus regular accountability at particular intervals. The Governor of the Bank of England has
  812
  always acknowledged publicly that being held to account in that manner is one of the most intimidating jobs that he has to do as part of fulfilling his responsibilities. All the regulators should feel similarly intimidated.
  We should take advantage of the growing interest in the parliamentary scrutiny offered by our Select Committees to build such accountability into the system of management of the utility regulators.
  Mr. O'Neill: The Trade and Industry Committee tries, as best it can, to frighten the living daylights out of the regulators, and occasionally it does it reasonably well. At a Select Committee sitting, the utility will get a hearing, and everyone else will also get a chance. If a utility goes to the Competition Commission, it will cost £2.5 million; if a utility goes for judicial review—which is usually grossly unsatisfactory—it will cost a lot of money and time; but if a utility comes to a Select Committee, it will not cost very much. There is a two-way dialogue in the hearings. Quite often, the companies themselves want their case to be heard, and our informal structures facilitate such a hearing much more easily than many people appreciate.
  Dr. Cable: That was a helpful intervention. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will persuade Ministers of the need to build that safeguard more strongly into the legislation.
  I should like to deal finally with the electricity trading arrangements, which are important not only for the economics of the utilities, but for environmental reasons. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) has already made the very important point that what the Minister stated as a matter of dogma—that there will be 10 per cent. savings—is being very seriously questioned by the professionals involved.
  Many other regulatory issues in electricity trading have not yet been addressed. There is now a very large market in paper products, such as futures and options, in electricity and other energy trading, and those will be subject to double regulation—by both the FSA and the energy regulator. No one seems yet to have clarified how that very important and large market, which will be crucial to the new regime, will work.
  The key problem is the environment. As I understand the new electricity marketing arrangements—which are very complex; I do not claim to be an expert on them—it will be much more difficult for renewable energy to make competitive bids within the new pool system. Wind and solar power generators, for example, are not able to guarantee fixed supply, as will be required under the new long-term contract structures. It is therefore important that we are clear, particularly with the fossil-fuel levy, about weighting and how renewable power will be protected and strengthened in the system.
  Another implication of the electricity trading arrangements is that it will become much clearer that gas, quite apart from its significant environmental advantages, has a competitive advantage over coal. As the Bill progresses, Ministers should clarify what they intend to do about the consents regime for gas-powered generators—which, when they were allowed to be developed, brought very considerable economic and environmental benefits to the United Kingdom. It is not clear whether the restrictions on supply from the gas sector will be maintained within the electricity trading arrangements.

  813
  The Bill contains many positive provisions which we support, such as the emphasis on competition, the new emphasis on social obligations and the more flexible approach to regulation—recognising that we are now moving past a resale price index-minus X type of regime for all the utilities. There are, however, major question marks about the strength of consumer protection and the environment, which Liberal Democrat Members will highlight in a series of detailed amendments.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: It is always heart-warming to listen to a Liberal Democrat agreeing with some and disagreeing with others, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has managed to do that for the last 20 minutes.
  The most interesting part of the speech by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was the last few sentences, in which she gave the game away by going back to the old rhetoric of privatisation that has dogged the Tory party for so many years. It struck me that although the faces have changed in the Opposition Trade and Industry team, their policy—such as it is—is still rather Redwoodian. They must move their policy from outer space back to the real world, and I must tell the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) that opposing a Bill such as this is not the real world. I will have more to say about him shortly, and he will enjoy that.
  In an article in "The House Magazine" last year, I wrote:
  "The fact that protecting consumer interests is not even a primary duty on the part of utilities regulators is the unfortunate legacy of the Tory Government. Put simply, the case for reforming the regulatory system is overwhelming."
  I welcome the Bill in that regard.
  Mr. Gibb: Does the hon. Gentleman know what the primary duty was under the previous legislation? If he does not, I can tell him. The previous primary obligation was security of supply. Does he accept that that should be the primary objective of the utilities?
  Mr. Caplin: As I continue my remarks, the hon. Gentleman will realise that I have a different angle on this matter. If he had read that article, he would know that it was based on consumers, particularly vulnerable consumers.
  In preparing that article, I looked at some key issues of post-privatisation Britain. Why had there been so many changes in the utility sector? It is clear that the number of customers having their service disconnected since privatisation has fallen, but, on the other hand—here I sound a bit like a Liberal Democrat—the number of complaints received by the various regulatory bodies has increased dramatically. The number of people employed by the utilities has fallen. The average bill in some utilities—such as gas, electricity and telecoms—has fallen, but the average annual bill for each of the privatised water companies has increased, and continues to do so.
  Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is right to note that water prices have increased, but he will know of two
  814
  major factors. The first was years of Treasury reluctance to put capital into the industries, and the second—and more important one—is the correct environmental standards that are now required, not least by the EU, which have meant that even more investment is necessary.
  Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman may well be right, but I draw his attention to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) on the windfall tax, which we were told was unacceptable and would decimate the utility sector. However, it has been a great success, although it was opposed by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that there were four key areas of the Bill. I think that there might be five, which I will take the House through. The first is to secure a fairer deal for consumers, which will be done by the establishment of the independent consumer councils so that there is an effective voice for those who pay the bills. The Bill will make sure that information can be published. There is also the principal objective of saying to the utilities that the protection and interests of consumers must be at the heart of their business.
  The second area is that of disadvantaged consumers, to which reference has been made in the debate. The Bill proposes a new duty for the regulators—and the utilities, ultimately—to take into account the interests of low-income consumers. Few Labour Members will be unhappy to see that duty placed on the utilities.
  Thirdly, the Bill modernises the regulatory framework. It is about 15 or 16 years since the privatisation of BT. We can argue about whether the framework used then was right or wrong, but we can all agree that the world has moved on and there is clearly a need for the system to be modernised to take account of market developments. [Interruption.] I understand that some Opposition Members may not want the world to move on. We have seen that already in the past two and a half years and we look forward to seeing it many more times.
  Mr. Gibb: We were trying to convey the fact that the official Opposition agree with the hon. Gentleman's vital point that, yes, the world has moved on.
  Mr. Caplin: I was trying to ask whether the Conservative party had moved on, but I realise that that was far too difficult a question.
  As multi-utility companies are clearly emerging, we need a new, modern regulatory framework. I believe that the Bill achieves that.
  Fourthly, the Bill recognises the importance of environmental objectives and brings them into the heart of the utilities and their regulation. It gives Ministers powers to make regulations to promote energy efficiency and the generation of electricity from renewable sources. I was certainly encouraged by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on that point. The Bill places a duty on the regulator to have regard to statutory guidance issued by Ministers on environmental objectives in the relevant sector. Even Greenpeace feels that the Bill has some positive impact on environmental considerations.
  Fifthly, the Bill brings about a more stable, consistent and transparent regulatory framework. In any Bill dealing with regulation, there are technical parts. The hon. Member

  815
  for Tiverton and Honiton took us through many of those, so I shall not go over that ground again. The Bill is about building confidence by making regulation open, accountable and consistent and ensuring that the regulators' decisions are widely accepted.
  I am glad that concerns in those five areas have been responded to over the past few months.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I both have electricity and gas provision from Seeboard in our areas. I gladly declare an interest in that Seeboard has 1,000 staff based in Hove. I asked the company what it thought about the Bill. In April 1998, it was the first electricity company in the country to abolish the standing charge, partly because of local pressure on behalf of people in fuel poverty. We are pleased that it responded, and that shows the effect that local campaigns can have. The Government also reduced fuel prices in their first Budget in 1997, by reducing VAT on fuel: a point to which we shall no doubt return in the general election.
  Seeboard said that it supports the legislation because it recognises the existence of weaknesses in the current regulatory framework. It said that the legislation allows the current public electricity supply licence to be replaced by separate distribution and supply licences, which it supports, establishes a single regulatory body and sets up the consumer council, which it supports especially because of the regional element, which is important from its point of view. Seeboard also believes that the Bill will reduce the regulatory uncertainty that has existed in the marketplace for some time, but still allow companies to run their operations in the best long-term interests of their customers and, of course, their shareholders. Seeboard supports the changes in the Bill that are intended to give effect to those measures, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is pleased that the provider of power in our area gives the Bill a thumbs up.
  The question of the social action plan and low income groups is at the heart of the Bill. That is the difference between the current, Conservative-sponsored legislation, which is about the supply of a utility, and this Bill, which is about putting the consumer first in utility regulation and the provision of services by utilities. The Bill will be regarded in years to come as an important, modernising Bill. It will reduce prices for the consumer, but it will do so in a way that allows the companies to continue to invest in their local areas.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. John Butterfill: The Secretary of State was uncharacteristically churlish when he described what he had inherited in the industries that we are discussing. I remember well the situation in which privatisation first took place, because I had the honour of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, who was then Secretary of State for Energy. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) was the Minister of State at the same time, and no doubt he will seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  At that time, the nationalised industries provided a poor service to the consumer. In fact, they did not care much about the consumer. They provided their services at high cost, and there was no attempt to modernise the industries in the way that they were being modernised in other parts of the world.
  816
  When we first suggested privatising energy industries, Opposition Members opposed it in principle, but they also claimed that it would not work. They said, "You can't possibly privatise a monopoly supplier and introduce competition into the process." Well, it did work, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, as recently as 1996, held this country out as an example of how it should be done. What we did was not perfect, because we were pioneering at the time. We were doing things that people did not believe to be possible.
  Mr. Caplin: If the privatisation of British Telecom was pioneering in the mid-1980s, why did the Tories get it so wrong with the water industry in the 1990s?
  Mr. Butterfill: I do not think that we did get it wrong, although it was not possible to get everything perfect. Much play has been made by Labour Members of the prices at which the industries were sold, but we should remember the climate. Privatisation had not been attempted before. Many people, especially all the then Opposition Members and including some people in the City, did not think that it could be done. People were nervous about the prices that the industries would be sold at, especially because they would be subject to close regulation. Indeed, people told us that it would not be possible to privatise electricity provision unless we took the nuclear industry out. That is why nuclear was not privatised at the same time as the other generators.
  Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point about the difficulties that we faced. Does he remember that the chairman of what was the Central Electricity Generating Board said that something called megavars would blow up the whole industry if we privatised it?
  Mr. Butterfill: I remember that well. The CEGB chairman was ambivalent about the whole privatisation process. We were told that selling the industry would be difficult, and impossible if nuclear were included.
  We took professional advice on the prices that could be achieved. It is also important to remember that the Treasury had a real interest in the price. Many civil servants at the Treasury at the time are still Treasury officials now, and they were extremely worried about how much money privatisation would produce.
  It is wrong, therefore, to say that the Government of the day sold off the electricity industry cheaply. We wanted to get as much money as possible, but we wanted privatisation to succeed. We took professional advice on the price that could be obtained.
  Everybody was surprised at the success of the enterprise. Labour Members were amazed that privatisation worked. It is wonderful to look back with hindsight and say that the industry was sold off cheaply, but at the time people were astonished that it was sold at all.
  Mr. O'Neill: The old nationalised industry was run by technologists and, at best, technocrats, not by business people. The accounting systems were of a perfunctory character and were somewhat opaque in several respects. However, that was a reflection not of the quality of management, but of the emphasis on technology.

  817
  Technology was at the core of the business. If something could improve technological performance, it was tried, but the question of whether that was necessarily good for the consumer was not considered. That was one of the factors that made pricing difficult. However, a lot of people made a lot of money out of privatisation, and perhaps there was not quite so much naivete in the City as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Butterfill: I do not think that anyone has suggested that the Government of the time were deliberately given inaccurate advice, nor that the advisers were guilty of professional negligence.
  Mr. John Cryer: Time and again, when they were privatising the railways, the previous Government were warned—by the unions and by independent bodies—that the price was set too low. They took no notice of that advice.
  Mr. Butterfill: I recall that the unions opposed every privatisation. In the main, the reasons that they gave for that opposition have proved ill founded. I think that all hon. Members would agree—as would the Government, even—that privatisation has been benign, and that it has benefited both consumers and UK plc. That is evident in the falls in domestic prices: prices for both electricity and gas have fallen by 29 per cent., while telecoms prices have fallen by 50 per cent.—and by 80 per cent. when those prices take account of telecommunications with Europe.
  It is proper now to look again at the privatisation process and seek to redress some of the imperfections in the original legislation. However, hindsight is a wonderful thing: it allows people to say how they would have introduced privatisation, but only after they have seen how the process turned out in real life.
  I welcome several proposals in the Bill. The merger of Ofgas and Offer to form Ofgem is a good idea that the Select Committee recommended a long time ago, on the basis that one regulator for that sector offers a lot of advantages. That arrangement would not have been possible originally, as the two industries were privatised separately, but, in today's circumstances, it is a logical proposal. Similarly, the proposal for separate licensing of supply and distribution of electricity is sensible, and I support it wholeheartedly.
  I am a little more worried about the proposals for the new electricity trading arrangements—NETA—which have attracted quite a lot of criticism. I have mentioned that Professor Bunn of the London business school thinks that prices will rise rather than fall. The difficulty is that the system to which we are moving is not based on real-time trading. Most of our western competitors have systems based on real-time trading, and they have achieved results in getting prices down. The new system is much more opaque and difficult to understand, and many of those being asked to participate in it have considerable doubts about whether it will work.
  I hope that it does work, as all hon. Members are in favour of lower electricity prices for consumers. However, Larry Ruff of National Economic Research Associates does not think that abandoning real-time trading will
  818
  work. He considers that it is not a sensible option, as it is wholly unproven. I should be interested to know how confident Ministers are that this novel idea will produce the hoped-for results.
  There are concerns about certain participants in market supply. For example, I imagine that most hon. Members will agree that combined heat and power is an extremely good idea, being more efficient and economical. It is something that we should have been involved with a long time ago. However, the Combined Heat and Power Association has reservations about how it will be able to participate under the new trading arrangements. The association is at something of an impasse with Ofgem about the resources that might be given to it to allow it to participate in market supply.
  In a recent submission to the Select Committee, the association stated:
  "the CHAP is on the verge of having to withdraw from the NETA process, due to a complete lack of funding from OFGEM to resource the consultants and legal advisers needed to steer through the highly complex and opaque … process."
  That is worrying. If important market participants such as the Combined Heat and Power Association think that the process is not working, many other, smaller contributors—which all hon. Members will want to encourage, because we all want greater diversity of supply—may have even greater difficulties. To describe the NETA process as "highly complex and opaque" is probably an understatement, given that even those of us who take an interest in the matter have experienced some difficulty in envisaging how the process will work. That is not a new experience, admittedly. Many of us found it difficult to understand how the pool would work; some of us still do.
  Another worry has to do with security of supply. I am not sure who, under the Bill, will have primary responsibility for that. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify the matter when she replies to the debate. It is an important issue. When members of the Select Committee went to see Ofgem, I asked how the new system of calculating electricity prices would affect the balance in the market of the different types of generator. Ofgem could not give a clear answer; in fact, it said that it was not its responsibility, and that projecting how the changes would affect the balance of supply was not within its remit. However, it seems clear that coal-fired energy producers may be at a disadvantage.
  I am also concerned that there is no clear idea from Ofgem or the Minister about what will happen to nuclear energy. Our nuclear capacity is likely to disappear altogether over the next 15 to 20 years unless the Government make an announcement to renew it. Within that period, it will steadily decline as a proportion of the market. That has implications for our Kyoto obligations and for what we are going to do for replacement energy.
  The Secretary of State has been refusing consents for increased capacity for gas-fired generation. How will the new obligations be met, and what effect will that have on other generators and the security of supply? Those are important questions, but they are not being addressed by Ofgem, which says that they are not its responsibility or, I suspect—unless I hear otherwise—by Ministers. Who will take the strategic decisions to ensure that we always have security of supply?
  Mr. Bob Laxton: On security of supply, do you not agree that there are real dangers in putting all our

  819
  generating eggs into one basket? May I remind you of the occasion—I think that it was 17 November 1998—when the demand for gas outstripped supply and there was an increase of about 140 per cent. in the spot price for gas? There are real dangers, which you alluded to, about the difficulty of lack of security.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. First, the hon. Gentleman's intervention is a bit too long. Also, I have not taken part in the debate, so he is best not to refer to me.
  Mr. Butterfill: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must have diversity of supply. We cannot be wholly dependent on one type of energy generator. I hope that combined heat and power will take off. I believe that the Government should be making decisions now on new nuclear installations, because it will not be possible for us to comply with Kyoto unless they do. Because it takes an awfully long time to get planning consent for all the public inquiries and then to build the installations, such decisions must be made sooner rather than later.
  I am concerned that the powers of the Secretary of State under the Bill are very wide-ranging. They impose a heavy burden of regulation—a burden we do not yet know the full extent of. Most of what is proposed in the Bill will become apparent when the regulations are made. As previous speakers have said, Members of Parliament do not like measures carried out by regulation because they avoid parliamentary scrutiny. Yet the Bill goes much further in that direction. It includes, within the Secretary of State's powers, all sorts of matters that are not immediately perceived as directly pertinent to the regulation of a utility.
  Much has been said about social objectives, and we all agree with the idea of having them. But they should be dealt with by the Department of Social Security, not through the regulation of the manufacture and sale of a product.
  Mr. Bercow: In the light of what he has said, is my hon. Friend not concerned that the Bill will dramatically increase the 2,800 regulations that have spewed forth from the Government's machinery since 1 May 1997? As a business man, in contrast to Labour Members, is he not concerned that, by increasing the regulatory risk to which the utilities are exposed, it will be substantially more expensive for them to have access to capital?
  Mr. Butterfill: My hon. Friend anticipates precisely what I was about to say. The increased burdens that the Bill is likely to impose on the industry may well increase the cost of electricity to consumers. That is not what the House should be doing. One day, in some utopia, we may not have social ills, but we do, and they need to be addressed elsewhere. They should not be dealt with by a method that will increase the cost to some of the most vulnerable people in our society, sometimes in ways that we do not fully understand.
  For example, the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) said that it was wonderful to have got rid of standing charges. In principle, I think that some change in standing charges is a good idea. But he knows that one of the main beneficiaries of the abolition of standing charges is that group of rather affluent people who have second homes
  820
  in constituencies such as mine and his. They go down only at weekends, do not pay the standing charge, and have lower bills. The people who live there all the time foot the bill.
  Mr. Stunell: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for strong Government intervention and expenditure on social welfare provision, or for something else?
  Mr. Butterfill: I am saying that it will always be the responsibility of Government to help the poorest and most needy in our society, and that the Bill is not the right place in which to do that.
  Mr. Hoyle: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that if people can turn on their electricity and gas without fear because the standing charge has been removed, it benefits those in our society who are worst off, not those with second homes?
  Mr. Butterfill: I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed my point. It would be better to have a mechanism whereby we assisted the group that he is concerned about but did not at the same time give a massive bonus to some of the very wealthy people who have second homes in constituencies such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Brighton and Hove. They can well afford to pay their electricity bills. The fact that they are not paying that element of their bills increases the bill for the more needy in society.
  Mr. Caplin: I actually represent Hove—indeed, I was waiting for the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to come in there.
  Why would the Electricity Consumers Council welcome the publication of the Bill and the duty that it gives regulators if it did not believe that it put consumers first? That is the essence of the Bill.
  Mr. Butterfill: I do not find it surprising that the council welcomed the Bill as there is likely to be considerable improvement in the areas with which it is concerned. It would be more surprising if it did not welcome the Bill.
  The Bill enormously increases the burden of regulation. It may increase the cost of electricity generation. We are returning to the nanny state beloved of the Labour party, which should have learned from what has happened here and around the world that we can best help the poorest in society by producing goods efficiently.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Butterfill: I am winding up and I have been generous, so I shall not.
  We must produce goods more efficiently and at lower cost. That is how to increase the wealth of society and help the most needy.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Bill Tynan: Speaking in debates is a new experience for me, and I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in such an important one. The Bill relates to the essentials of life for my constituents. The range of issues it covers will affect utility shareholders

  821
  and consumers. The Bill is the product of two years of extensive consultation, and the House should recognise the credibility that its proposals gain from that process.
  The Bill's main principles deserve our support as they address some of society's problems. We must produce legislation that ensures the best delivery of service at the right price. However, we must also be committed to achieving the highest safety standards. Reducing prices at the cost of lower safety causes enormous problems. Recently, just four miles from where I live, a massive gas explosion destroyed a house, killing a family of four. The case is being investigated by the Health and Safety Executive, but pipes were known to have corroded. Concern remains that pipes on new estates in my constituency, which were recently laid, have the same problem. We must ensure that health and safety are not compromised by price reductions.
  The Bill seeks to establish a fair balance between the interests of consumers and shareholders. The radical changes proposed will be welcomed by many. The establishment of an independent consumers council has prompted considerable debate, but unless we make the council powerful, we shall create a regulatory body that achieves nothing. Consumers' fears must be addressed. If consumers have problems or complaints, there must be a central point to which to take them. I welcome the introduction of a powerful council.
  Regulators will have regard for the Government's social and environmental objectives. That approach is both sensible and desirable. It has not been taken in the past. I particularly welcome the Bill's provisions for increased transparency, accountability and consistency of regulation. There will be greater scope for consultation on key decisions in the various utilities, which will provide opportunities to examine what must be done and how it should be done.
  It is inherent in that process that regulators should have more powers to publish information in the interests of consumers. I welcome openness. I recall that the distribution price review was based on a consultative report commissioned by Ofgem. The report assessed labour costs and possible savings, but its findings remain confidential despite their having been a key factor in the regulator's decision-making process. We never gained access to that report. Information is vital to the achievement of accountability, giving workers in industries and consumers the chance to see important facts that affect their lives. I would welcome an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs that reports of that nature will be accessible to the public when the Bill is enacted.
  The final proposal that would benefit the consumer by creating a fairer system lies in the trading arrangements that other hon. Members have mentioned this evening. Making the market more competitive is the intention behind those arrangements. That would offer the prospect of lower electricity prices, which all of us should welcome. However, concerns remain about the Bill, arising principally from the proposal to reduce prices by 10 per cent. Consumers would welcome that, but I sound a slight note of caution. Reducing prices must not mean that utilities shed labour without regard for safety. It is easy for employers to decide that cutting labour should be
  822
  the first way to reduce costs, but they must recognise the value of employees and search for greater efficiency and delivery of service.
  Recent periodic price reviews in the electricity and water industries resulted in massive redundancies. Regulation should promote careful, constructive management of change rather than encouraging the short-termism shown by some electricity and water companies.
  Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on last week's news that water prices in Scotland will go up by 50 per cent. over the next two years? Does he think that that is good news?
  Mr. Tynan: The Scottish Executive has dealt with price increases in Scotland. There are variations across the country. In the north, for example, there has been a lack of investment, and the price of water will increase. The increases for all areas were a decision of the Scottish Executive and were accepted by the Scottish Parliament.
  The Bill seeks to ensure that disadvantaged consumers will benefit. Regulation must take the needs of all consumers into account. Anyone who has been unable to turn on heating or lights will know how important the Bill is. We must pass it through the House as speedily as we can. The new duty of the regulator to take into account the interests of low-income consumers must be applauded. Energy efficiency standards and performance that will help the poor to reduce their energy bills must be welcome. The modernisation of the regulatory framework is essential to the delivery of keener prices and better services.
  Increased competition in electricity supply and the emergence of multi-utility companies have created the need for a flexible framework, which must be able to respond to change and the modernisation of the utilities. Environmental objectives, such as energy efficiency, must form part of the planning process for those utilities.
  I welcome the fact that Ministers have the power to make regulations to promote energy efficiency in the generation of renewable energy. It is clear from the consultation process that there is substantial support for the measure. Opposition Members have also expressed support for many of the Bill's provisions.
  The primary duty of the new Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—GEMA—to the consumer will be to ensure that the regulatory body accesses and monitors the safety record of utility companies. That will lead to joined-up working between GEMA and the Health and Safety Executive. That is essential in view of the high standard of safety required in the industry.
  Mr. Bercow: In view of some of his earlier remarks, will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position? Will he confirm that he believes that prices should be set at such a level as not only to allow for energy efficiency schemes and the observation of health and safety standards, but to subsidise wage rates?
  Mr. Tynan: That is essential in relation to health and safety. However, wage rates are normally dealt with between unions and employers. It is a question not of subsidising wage rates, but of ensuring that health and safety comes first with employers. I am sure that the unions would agree with that.

  823
  Joined-up working between GEMA and the HSE is vital. In addition, we need substantial monetary penalties for breaches of licence and of standards of service. The fines must not be meaningless. We must ensure that regulation and service are protected in the way outlined in the measure. Our standards must be set high because of our commitment to safety in the industry.
  We have not said much about the employees in the utilities who will deliver those essential efficiency improvements. Those employees are also stakeholders; their needs should be taken into account when we consider the measure.
  The Bill offers us a way forward. In Committee, we must examine the propositions put by Members on both sides of the House so that we can produce a measure that will benefit all the people whom we represent.
  6.23 pm
  Sir Michael Spicer: The hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) asked how prices could be reduced by 10 per cent. The answer is by competition. As the Bill is anti-competition and would prevent competition, it does not have a hope in hell of reducing prices by the amount that the hon. Gentleman wants.
  Before I develop my argument, I declare an interest as the president of the Association of Electricity Producers, although I suspect that much of my speech will not win the support of members of that organisation. In view of my declaration, I hope that the Whips will acknowledge that I should be a singularly inappropriate member of the Standing Committee.
  The second interest that I declare is the one referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill): I was the Minister who piloted the Electricity Act 1989 through Committee. In that capacity, I was opposed by the then hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now the Prime Minister, who, in his inimitable way, made the suggestion—quickly agreed to—that the Bill should go through fairly easily, as he wanted to get home to his young family as often as possible. On four occasions, he asked whether he could issue press releases before lunch. We agreed to that, much to the chagrin—indeed outrage—of the Labour Whip who was in charge of the Bill. However, that was overridden, and the hon. Member for Sedgefield got his way.
  I refer to the 1989 Act because it is highly representative of the Conservative Government's approach to utilities and regulation.
  Mr. Bercow: The House is waiting, with eager anticipation and with beads of sweat on its collective brow, to discover whether my hon. Friend wisely retained his copies of the press releases issued by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. If my hon. Friend has done so, we shall certainly be able to see that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind on every one of the issues.
  Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There have already been allusions to the many unqualified statements made at that time by the now right hon. Gentleman—to the fact that such a measure would never work and that the industry would collapse. He made such pronouncements on three occasions.
  824
  They are recorded in the press, because even in those days he was able to get himself into the newspapers, and they certainly bear much reading. My hon. Friend is right to draw the House's attention to that matter.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that those statements might well be of interest to the Bill's Standing Committee?
  Sir Michael Spicer: I have already made clear my own unsuitability for membership of that Committee—[Interruption.] I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will tell the Whips what I said. However, I would certainly advise those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are members of the Committee to look out those statements because there is no question but that they are worth reading.
  The 1989 Act is highly representative of the previous Conservative Government's whole approach to the utilities and their regulation. The changes to that legislation included in the Bill are equally representative of the Labour Government's approach to those matters.
  The general idea behind the 1989 Act was to privatise electricity in such a way as to maximise competition over time and, as that increased competition occurred, so to diminish those powers of the regulator which were specifically focused on competition. Over time, regulation would give way to competition as the best means of protecting the consumer. That aspect of regulation has escaped the Government and continues to do so.
  Several features of privatisation helped to meet that objective; they are now under threat. The structure that we used militated against the vertically integrated franchise—the American model. We were against that model, because we did not want vertically integrated, local monopolies. We began with a brave move, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West pointed out—we broke up the Central Electricity Generating Board into about five separate players.
  However, most important was the fact that we built into the measure a dynamic towards near-perfect competition, in an industry to which competitive pressures were extremely difficult to apply. We did that in such a way that not only were there new entrants to generating—to which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) referred—but the distribution and supply companies were subject to competitive pressures. By 1998, those companies were selling in and out of each other's markets and were entirely free from competitive restrictions, as had been planned at the outset.
  The regulator was chosen, not only for his personality, but as someone who had competition at the front of his mind. Professor Stephen Littlechild was the nearest thing to a competition expert who could be found at that time. He has been replaced by someone who, whatever his merits—and Callum McCarthy has great merits—is really a high-flying civil servant. He is interested in politics and in the ways of Whitehall, but he has no experience of the marketplace, nor any particular interest in it.
  Another part of the process of setting up a competitive industry—I shall return to this point—was the establishment of a half-hourly pricing system that was completely transparent. The pool may have had its faults—we can discuss them—but it was a transparent system of pricing and it allowed for marginal supply to come on-stream at the price that was appropriate.

  825
  The effect of the competitive pressure that was built into the 1989 Act has been pretty dramatic. Reference has been made to the fact that we now have a much more competitive industry, but the figures are astonishing. In 1991, two companies—National Power and PowerGen—held 74 per cent. of the generating market. By 1998, National Power's share was down to 13 per cent. from 46 per cent.—it is set to fall to 8 per cent. this year—and PowerGen's share is currently at 14 per cent., down from 28 per cent. in 1991. The two biggest players now have only 22 per cent. of the highly competitive generating market between them. Today, 30 generators use the pool, as opposed to the five or so who used it regularly when it was set up.
  The electricity market has been transformed into a highly competitive market. If everything is hunky-dory, why is there a need for the Bill? The answer is that competition is no longer the Government's primary objective in their regulatory approach to the utilities. The scene is set by the proposed new section 3A(1) in clause 12. It says:
  "The principal objective of the Secretary of State and the Authority in carrying out their respective functions under this Part is to protect the interests of consumers in relation to the supply of electricity, wherever appropriate by promoting effective competition".
  "Wherever appropriate" is the qualification attached to that.
  In the name of competition and by using consumers as a human shield, the Government will create a whole new set of regulatory objectives, many of which will act against the interests of competition. One has only to start looking through the Bill to recognise that. Clause 12 also introduces the concept of income distribution, and reference has already been made to that. That concept has nothing to do with competition or electricity. It is questionable whether giving people access to electricity on special terms is the best way to help the disabled and those of pensionable age or on low incomes.
  The Government should tell us why measures that will distort competition appear throughout a Bill that is ostensibly about competition. Proposals are made for the electricity and water industries and for the Office of Telecommunications. Why should a Bill, the early clauses of which are apparently dedicated to competition, contain objectives that will undoubtedly distort the marketplace? The Government's aims are confused, and clause 13 will create more distortions.
  Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will create the need for a whole new almoning system in parallel with the social security system?
  Sir Michael Spicer: I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is wasteful and untransparent to help people in need by regulation and through industry. It raises the question why one set of electricity consumers will have to pay more—I presume that they will—to subsidise other sections of the community. Would it not be much better to do that through the taxation system or through a more transparent use of benefits?
  826
  The same points apply to clause 13, which in the proposed new section 3(B)(1) introduces the objective of
  "the attainment of any social or environmental policies … referred to in the guidance."
  Mr. Stunell: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument for completely open competition, but may I take him a little further? Does he think that it is right for urban consumers to subsidise rural consumers? Does he not concede that there are some areas in which the market needs to be regulated?
  Sir Michael Spicer: If we want genuine competition and transparency in electricity provision, full costs and marginal costs should be made properly transparent. If the requirement is to subsidise rural communities, that should be done through direct Government subventions in a way that does not distort the market. The Government's approach is wrong. When the previous Government privatised the bus industry, we made a clear distinction between economic costings and social subventions, which were made through financial means, and proper pricing, which should reflect costs and the marketplace. That is a manifestly sensible way to support the people whom one wants to support without distorting the market system.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I am grateful for the honesty with which the hon. Gentleman makes the case for competition and for his point about the importance of covering full and marginal costs in the charging process. I understand his point that it is the Government's role to make compensatory payments. Given the additional costs that central Government would inevitably occur on a huge scale, how would he suggest paying for that if he were a member of a Government who were saddled with such bills?
  Sir Michael Spicer: The way in which social benefits and payments are made is a matter for the Government of the day to determine. However, in the electricity industry, one set of consumers, some of whom may be poor or deprived but not specifically listed in the Bill, should not subsidise another. That will have distortive effects if the aim is genuinely to have a fair and transparent marketplace. Subsidies, however, are a matter for the Government of the day to determine.
  Clause 56 also moves specifically against competition in the electricity industry. It relates to the pool and the new trading arrangements that the Government are belatedly proposing. There has been much to-ing and fro-ing, and everyone knows that they have had their difficulties in introducing the new arrangements. The pool is an open market that is priced on a half-hourly basis and in which—contrary to what the Secretary of State suggested—the price is the marginal price that comes on. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that the pool is in some way less open and less supportive of competition than a system comprised of bilateral contracts made and agreed—by the regulator, by Government or who knows?—in many cases behind closed doors.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West made an important point about the difficulty, in those circumstances, of ensuring security of supply. That is certainly true. The pool system may have its deficiencies, but they could have been put right if the Government had not taken the doctrinal view that it should be

  827
  abolished altogether. However, those deficiencies at least accommodated the concept of the marginal supplier coming on board at a price. There was always going to be a marginal supplier, which ensured security of supply.
  In a system in which bilateral agreements are to be struck behind closed doors, nobody knows how the contracts will be assured and there is no way of guaranteeing security of supply. I totally agree with my hon. Friend. My point, however, is that the system is fundamentally anti-competitive.
  Let us consider a plausible example in which a contract with a large supplier of coal-based electricity receives the Government's blessing. It is more than likely that such a contract already exists. That electricity could be extremely expensive but it fits in with the Government's intention to continue to protect the coal industry. Who knows how that contract came about? Who knows what factors lay behind it? Who knows whether there are political objectives behind it which are completely contrary to the marketplace objectives of a free flow of information and proper pricing according to competitive cost structures? Nobody knows because a new system of secret pricing is emerging.
  The Government portray the Bill as legislation that will bring down prices, but nobody knows what will be the basis of those contracts. Indeed, in my example of a secret contract involving a supplier of coal-based electricity, or in the case of a contract with a supplier of nuclear-based electricity, it is likely that prices would rise.
  The Secretary of State said at the beginning of his speech that electricity prices will come down by 10 per cent. That claim seems bizarre, given the way in which the new system has been explained to us. The truth is that the Government do not like the market-based system that we provided; they like intervening and interfering, particularly to protect certain sectors of the industry with which they have connections.
  The best way to do that is to set up a system of secret pricing and of bilateral contracts being struck behind closed doors which are not transparent and do not meet the needs of the marketplace. I am not surprised that a Labour Government are doing that. My objection is that they are pretending that the system is more competitive than the previous one, not to mention my hon. Friend's point about the dangers of having no security of supply.
  The Government's approach to regulation applies to the four industries in the Bill. The excuse for that approach is the consumer. The word "consumer" appears often. However, if one believes that the consumer's best protection is proper competition, most of the policies and regulations are contrary to the consumer's interests.
  The Government's new form of regulation is radical and in its objectives it is completely different from the regulation adopted by the previous Government. It applies across the board and is part of a pattern. It applies to rail regulation and integrated transport. It applies to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which we debated last Thursday and which will introduce social, universal and compulsory banking. It applies to the Post Office regulator—who has been given the job of working out how to privatise the industry—and the concept of total coverage. It applies to the way in which the water industry is to be regulated according to environmental interests rather than those of the consumer. It applies to Oftel, which is given the objective of providing total coverage in the Bill.
  828
  All those regulators are being given social and political objectives, which are antithetical to competition. We are witnessing a parallel system of government emerging. I shall use the idiom "joined up" because, in their consultation paper "A Fair Deal for Consumers", the Government suggest having a cabinet of regulators who would work out together each industry's capacity to achieve the various political objectives, which have no bearing on competition. The political imperatives will be provided by the Government, and the regulator will implement them with all-pervasive powers of intervention.
  That is socialism by regulation; it is socialism on the sly and it is nationalisation by the back door. I hope that one of our first objectives when we return to government will be to dismantle all the regulatory apparatus, except for that which focuses on competition, because competition is the true friend of the consumer.
  6.46 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: At the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), I would have been happy to accept his view of his unsuitability for the Standing Committee. Having disagreed with much of the thrust of his speech, I hope that Opposition Whips believe that he was being too modest and that they will regard him as a suitable case for the corrective discipline that the Standing Committee should offer. I should have loved to have helped the hon. Gentleman through the experience of that Committee, but I hope that the Government Whips will take note of my service on another one.
  I warmly welcome the Bill. It modernises the regulation of our utilities and locks in train the twin principles of fairness and concern for the environment. It will help further to stimulate efficiency, innovation and higher standards in the utilities. The Bill continues the process, within one key part of our economy, of integrating economic, social and environmental needs, and of ensuring joined-up decision making, which is crucial to moving us towards a sustainable economy.
  Crucially, and to the relief of my constituents, the Bill puts consumers truly at the heart of utility regulation. Many of my constituents remember well how, in the summer of 1996, our local water company suffered an outbreak of crytosporidia in the water supply, causing concern and inconvenience to constituents and local businesses. I remember in particular the concern about the company's attitude and the deep frustration felt by the president of my local chamber of commerce about a utility company that was insufficiently accountable to its consumers.
  More, recently, I shared with constituents living in Holmwood close—a small, low-lying cul-de-sac—the frustration about another utility company's failure to take the necessary remedial action to protect their homes from the many incidents of flooding that they had experienced. It should not require pressure from a Member of Parliament and senior councillors to force a utility company to listen. The company in question has finally taken action, and my constituents and I welcome that.
  I am pleased that the Bill introduces new, enhanced consumer councils, which will be able to act as public advocates for all utility consumers. They will be able to mediate between complainants and the utility companies

  829
  and to act as champions of the consumer. I am sure that my constituents will welcome the likely price reductions and the publication of links between directors' pay and levels of service.
  There are examples of good practice among utility companies which the Bill will build on. Eastern Electricity, which serves the interests of my constituents, has committed itself to achieving 10 per cent. of its energy from renewables, and has been at the forefront of efforts to promote consumer usage of renewable energy. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) highlighted the positive decision by Seeboard to abolish the standing charge. That is a positive move for those of us who are concerned with social justice.
  A crucial part of the backdrop for the Bill is the environmental imperative to reduce our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The promotion of a new drive for energy efficiency, which will be stimulated by the Bill, will be a welcome adjunct to the climate change programme that the Government are due to publish soon. That is one example of the reductions in emissions that the Bill will further stimulate.
  It is worth restating Lord Marshall's view, which was published in his report on economic instruments and the business use of energy:
  The commitments agreed at Kyoto are only the beginning if we are really going to tackle the threat of climate change."
  He added:
  This is not least a competitiveness point … There is a risk that firms investing now may get locked into capital stock which does not meet the requirements of the future.
  As well as the environmental imperative, there is a need for utilities to invest appropriately. Climate change offers new economic opportunities for business, which many of our utilities will be well placed for, thanks to the Bill: it will drive down business energy costs. It is yet another example of the Government's success in creating the conditions for business to thrive.
  I welcome the focus on fuel poverty, the alleviation of which the Bill will help to stimulate, specifically by highlighting the interests of low-income and disadvantaged consumers. It will allow further attention to be given to tackling the problems of those in fuel poverty. Research shows that cold homes are associated with increased winter mortality, ill health and impaired quality of life. I understand that research shows that about 30,000 more people, mainly over 60, die during the winter in the United Kingdom than would be expected given the average death rate over the year. This so-called excess winter mortality is caused by exposure to outdoor conditions as well as cold homes. However, it is much higher in the United Kingdom than in other countries, including those in Scandinavia, where winter outdoor conditions are more severe but where homes are more energy efficient.
  The 1996 English house condition survey estimated that there were at least 4.3 million households spending more than 10 per cent. of their income to maintain a satisfactory level of heating. In other words, those households were living in fuel poverty. Given these figures, it is entirely right that we take further action to require the utilities companies to promote action on fuel poverty. I say that even though the Government have already taken several
  830
  measures to confront the problem. For example, there have been the reduction in value added tax, the introduction of the £100 winter fuel allowance and the new home energy efficiency scheme—all welcome initiatives.
  The general duty on the regulator to have regard to ministerial guidance on social and environmental objectives, for example, and the fact that the guidance will be published and laid before Parliament are also welcome moves. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), which she expressed in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Utility companies should report on their progress towards achieving environmental objectives.
  I shall now concentrate my remarks on clauses 50 to 56, which deal with electricity produced from renewable sources and the establishment of the new electricity trading arrangements. Economic opportunities flow from renewable energy because of environmental pressures. The renewable energy industry is one of the hinges between the needs of business and the need to protect the environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) referred to employees within the utility industry. Having read the statistics in a House research paper on employment in the utilities, and the figures produced by my union, the excellent Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, on jobs in the electricity industry work force, the significant feature I note is the huge loss of jobs over the past 10 years in the utility sector. It makes depressing reading.
  The renewable energy industry now employs about 3,500 people. It is one part of the electricity industry that holds out the prospect of considerable employment growth over the next 10 to 15 years. Achieving our target of 10 per cent. of energy from renewable sources would create between 10,000 to 45,000 new jobs, according to the Department of Trade and Industry, and up to double those figures according to estimates made by Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.
  There is considerable export potential for a dynamic British renewable energy industry. For each of the past six years, global sales of wind turbines—one small part of the renewable industry—have increased by about 40 per cent. The estimates and projections of the World Energy Council indicate cumulative investment in renewables for the next 10 years ranging from £150 billion to about £400 billion. An analysis produced by Shell suggests that renewables will meet about 40 per cent. of world energy needs by 2050. That represents a huge opportunity for renewables in Britain.
  Clauses 50 to 55 place obligations on suppliers, which I welcome particularly. They offer a key policy tool to stimulate an expansion of our domestic renewables industry. Such an expansion is crucial if we are to take advantage of both current and future growth in renewables. We have arguably the best offshore and onshore wind resource in Europe, but with 330 MW of installed capacity by last year, we lagged behind Germany, which has 2,900 MW of installed capacity. Denmark is in a much better position than the UK, with 1,450 MW.
  An estimate of the realistic potential of renewable energy sources was carried out by Energy for Sustainable Development for the European Commission in 1997, and was considered by the Select Committee on the European

  831
  Communities in another place during its inquiry into renewables last year. The report suggested that, by 2020, a realistic aspiration for primary energy from renewables in Britain was 27 per cent. The Committee also highlighted the estimate made by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—that achieving our 10 per cent. target for renewables would provide about 25 per cent. of the carbon savings needed to meet the 20 per cent. carbon dioxide emission reduction target that we set out in our manifesto.
  Clauses 50 to 55 will help to ensure that the obligation on electricity suppliers continues to promote competition and that renewable energy is delivered at the lowest possible cost. Clause 51 allows specific types of renewable generation to be targeted by the government. I hope that the clause will be used to enable less mature and currently less cost-effective renewables to be brought on over time. I hope too that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench will not promote the use of payments, even though they are rightly allowed by clause 53, instead of meeting the obligation—except as a method of enforcing the obligation. I hope also that they will set high payment levels.
  The replacement of the non-fossil fuel obligation by the obligation to be placed on suppliers is especially important given the problems that many renewables providers have had in the planning process with NFFO contracts. The NFFO contracts are linked to specific sites, and it is usually only after a contract has been granted that planning permission is sought. Considerable delay can result. Indeed, in December 1998, the energy technology support unit published research for the DTI that showed that, since 1994, of 63 applications for planning permission by renewable providers with an offer of contract, 15 had already been refused.
  The brutal truth is that while the NFFO has succeeded in promoting considerable reductions in the cost of renewable energy, it has not promoted a significant expansion of renewables capacity in the UK. The obligation is therefore extremely welcome to promote that expansion. However, an obligation on its own will not be enough. I await with considerable interest a further statement on support for renewables. I hope that the statement will contain targets for beyond 2010, which would enable the energy industry and the City to plan their capital investment programmes and to forecast good returns on their investments in renewables, with confidence.
  Clause 56 provides the broad enabling power to establish the new electricity trading arrangements—NETA. Change often causes concern. As the hon. Members for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said, there are concerns about the possible impact on renewables. I hope that my ministerial colleagues will be able to give an assurance that the impact of NETA on renewables will be kept under careful review. Perhaps I may suggest again that a dedicated member representing renewables should serve on the balancing and settlement panel that will monitor the delivery of the electricity trading arrangements. Clearly, the provisions of the Bill need to be considered alongside the climate change levy and the package of further support to the renewables that will shortly be published.
  832
  In essence, this is an excellent Bill. It offers an exciting future for the renewables industry in the United Kingdom. In the wider utilities sector, it holds out the prospect of significant progress in delivering reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It puts the consumer firmly at the heart of regulatory priorities. It is a Bill whose impact will, I am sure, be welcomed by my constituents.
  7 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas). I share his enthusiasm for renewables, if not for the Bill. Speaking as Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, I see a strong future for biomass in renewables, which should give great heart to farming in the long term, if not in the short or medium term.
  I must declare an interest. I was for two years at the Department of Trade and Industry, as special adviser to the right hon. Lord Young of Graffham, then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, at a time when regulation was in its infancy. Our hopes then were simply expressed. We hoped that there would come a time when we could end regulation and replace it entirely by effective competition. It is that spirit which motivates the Opposition and which is so conspicuous by its absence among Labour Members.
  We were blessed with a series of fine regulators at the time. I think particularly of people like Sir Bryan Carsberg—probably the finest regulator in the world—often frustrated, as he was, at the lack of will on the part of some of the competitors in telecommunications to use his powers to secure effective competition in that industry.
  At the time—1987 to 1989—the present Prime Minister was No. 2 to the then hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in the shadow DTI team, and he was then, as he is now, outshining him spectacularly. I looked back at the debate in 1988 on the Second Reading of the Electricity Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) alluded during his excellent speech. The words of the then hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would warm the heart of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), if he is concerned about the beating heart of the Labour grass roots.
  The then hon. Member for Sedgefield said in the debate:
  "The question that the country asks and that the Secretary of State—
  the right hon. Lord Parkinson—
  "must answer is why an industry, brought together in the public interest over 100 years to serve the nation, must now in the same public interest be torn apart, broken up, and sold in two years to serve the demands of private profit."
  He went on:
  "It cannot be stressed too strongly that our modern industry was not built on a foundation of success created by market forces. It was created by clearing the rubble of disorganised chaos that they left behind. What is so wrong with the industry today"—
  hon. Members will remember exactly what was wrong with the industry then—
  "What is so wrong with the industry today that it is incapable of alteration in public ownership? What are the clear benefits that will flow from it being split and sold?"
  The then hon. Member for Sedgefield actually prophesied that prices would rise as a direct result of privatisation.

  833
  My hon. Friend the then Member for Lewisham, West, now the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), asked the now Prime Minister:
  "Will a future Labour Government renationalise the whole industry, and if so, on what terms?"
  The answer was clear. The then hon. Member for Sedgefield replied:
  "We are proud that we took the industry into public ownership. When we come to power it will be reinstated as a public service for the people of this country, and will not be run for private profit."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark), then the hon. Member for Rochford, asked the then hon. Member for Sedgefield whether he would care
  "to indulge in some frankness and tell us how his party, when and if it returns to power, will pay for nationalising the electricity supply industry? Will it be through huge tax increases?"
  The answer came from the then hon. Member for Sedgefield:
  "We will reinstate it as a proper public service under public control."
  In a way, I see the Bill as the fulfilment of those pledges made by the Prime Minister when he was in opposition. They show where his heart lies. He said a couple of years before the election that the character of his Government would become clear only when Labour was in government. The Bill exposes the true character of the Government, who are interested, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire rightly said, in nationalisation by the back door, if not by the front door.
  The principal objective for regulators set in the Bill is
  "to protect the interests of consumers".
  Amen to that. We are all in favour of protecting the interests of consumers, but how is that best done—by an army of bureaucrats and officials, or by effective competition? It is competition, not regulation, that must be our objective. I fear that the Bill seeks to enshrine in perpetuity the principle of regulation.
  That is my first concern about the Bill. We should be working to end regulation by increasing competition, not giving it our blessing by the passage of the Bill. I have two particular concerns—first, the effect of the Bill on the water industry in general and on my constituency, and secondly, the effect on electricity distribution investment, specifically in Worcestershire.
  Sir Michael Spicer rose—
  Mr. Luff: I give way to my hon. Friend and constituent.
  Sir Michael Spicer: May I interrupt my hon. Friend's flow to ask whether he would go on to say, as I would, that regulation and competition are opposites?
  Mr. Luff: Regulation is a necessary condition, in the absence of competition. Competition and regulation are opposites. We need limited regulation in the case of natural monopolies. I freely admit that, but we should be setting as our objective the ending of regulation and the enhancement of competition. I am at one with my hon. Friend on that.
  I do not say that everything in the Bill is unwelcome. If it were a small Bill with a few clauses, designed to tidy up bits and pieces here and there on the road to the
  834
  abolition of regulation, I would not mind. However, it is a massive tome, with 134 clauses and heaven knows how many schedules. There are some good things tucked away in it—merging gas and electricity regulation probably makes sense in the short term, although the Government could surely have come up with a better name than Ofgem. It sounds like the regulator for de Beers, not the energy industry.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, West about the powers to promote electricity from renewables. That is good, in its limited way. The separation of licensing of electricity supply from distribution probably makes sense. The Bill takes a more collegiate approach to regulation—I can go along with that, at least in the short term.
  If only the objective of the Bill were the end of regulation, but it is not. It is exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire said—socialism, or nationalisation, by the back door. The Bill is well meaning. I freely concede that. Much of what the Government do is well meaning, but we know what the road to hell is paved with. That is the trouble with the Bill.
  I fear that the Government see the utilities as some sort of milch cow to fund all their wider objectives. Already the wretched utilities have had the windfall tax imposed on them, to pay for the window-dressing of the new deal, which has achieved absolutely nothing in the real world. Now we see the utilities being used to secure all sorts of environmental and social objectives which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) said, are better fulfilled by more explicit mechanisms.
  If the Government want to achieve something, they should do so by being explicit, not by tucking it away in the conditions of duty of a regulator. That is the source of my particular concern about all the secondary legislation implied in the Bill. Let us consider the water industry. To do the Government credit, it is clear in the Bill that they understand that there is a difference between energy and telecommunications on one side, and water on the other. It is right that they should set different regimes.
  Do the Government understand, however, how the water industry still needs to invest to meet consumers' demands and its environmental obligations, and how difficult it will be for the industry to raise money under the regime set out in the Bill? We all know that there was a legacy of underinvestment while water was in the public sector. There always would be, while water investment was competing with schools, hospitals, law and order and so on.
  I am quite clear that the just published periodic review was far too tough. It will inhibit investment and it has already cost jobs. I think particularly of a major investment scheme urgently needed in my constituency to replace old collapsing sewers in Droitwich Spa high street. The stench from those sewers is dreadful in the summer months and it deters trade in the high street. I know that Severn Trent will now find it considerably more difficult to fund the replacement of those sewers on a reasonable time scale as a direct result of the over-heavy regulation already imposed on the water industry.
  The problem is that the industry is effectively powerless to complain about adverse regulatory findings. The Bill was an opportunity to put that right, but it fails to do so. I quote from a letter that I received from the director of one water company. He writes:
  "The issue is that of being able to focus on only one, or a few, issues in any appeal to such as the Competition Commission. Currently, as I am sure you're aware, all aspects of a utilities price

  835
  determination (i.e. every aspect of your operation) is likely to be examined in a referral. This makes the whole process very protracted as well as intrinsically increasing the very business uncertainty the investor community so dislikes. There is also the very real problem of large scale diversion of those key resources we need to improve services and efficiency.
  In the light of the foregoing, you will doubtless understand why none of the Water Services plcs, despite having huge problems with the final price limits, have gone to the Competition Commission, so underlining a lack of faith in the whole appeals process."
  The Bill presents an opportunity for the Government to replace the blunderbuss of the investigations that caused so much anxiety to the water companies with a provision that is more precise and effective, and less costly and disruptive. They have flunked that opportunity.
  In the current review, the water industry is allowed a modest cost of capital—4.75 per cent., which is fixed for five years. It should be able to complain about that narrow issue and examine carefully whether the regulator has reached the right conclusion. However, it is denied the right to do that.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give his constituents a voice and complain about the 57 per cent. increase in prices and the 101 per cent. real increase in profits that they have experienced since privatisation?
  Mr. Luff: The hon. Lady betrays such a lack of understanding of the mechanism of the water industry that it is difficult to know where to begin without making a separate speech. I have already explained that companies inherited a massive legacy of underinvestment as a result of state control. The environmental obligations that have been imposed, probably rightly, on the industry require massive investment. Where will that money come from? I doubt whether the hon. Lady is offering to subsidise it from her purse. As for the increase in profits to which the hon. Lady alludes, the water companies invest more than their profits each year. Labour Members' understanding of profits is very poor. The hon. Lady's intervention betrayed a problem, which goes to the heart of why the Bill is wrong—
  Mr. John Gummer: Old Labour.
  Mr. Luff: Exactly. The intervention betrayed a hostility to private sector investment and to profits. I pay tribute to the way Severn Trent has dramatically improved the service to my constituents. Its response to a water pollution incident in Worcester a few years ago was far better than what a nationalised industry was capable of. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) is completely wrong. The investment in improved water services in my constituency has been dramatic and welcome, but someone—not the taxpayer any more—had to pay for it. After many years of paying, the taxpayer was not prepared to do so any longer.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Luff: With pleasure, if the hon. Gentleman's intervention is similar to the previous one.
  Mr. Simpson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the regulator's comments about price determination in
  836
  Severn Trent, he focused on the internal costs of capital in relation to the price reductions that he recommended, because the industry charged the public twice as much in returns through dividend payments as it could charge if it financed the investment internally? The reward in dividend payments constituted a double charge on consumers for the single investment that they received.
  Mr. Luff: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The answer is a matter of judgment. The market has made a judgment about the regulation of the water industry, especially Severn Trent. The market price of Severn Trent is below its asset value. That suggests that the regulatory decision is wrong. The hon. Gentleman should consider that carefully when he makes a judgment about whether the regulator is right. I believe that the regulator is wrong, and that he has made Severn Trent vulnerable to foreign acquisition and takeover.
  That is an interesting dilemma for the company. It is not eligible for domestic takeover, but a French company could snaffle it. I do not object to foreign inward investment in the United Kingdom, but the regulator's decision has made that prospect more likely. That is surprising, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to endorse that, given his perspective on such matters.
  The regulator is quoted in The Daily Telegraph of 27 January. He was speaking at a conference entitled "Life after the 1999 periodic review". The article states:
  "Mr. Byatt said the Bill 'shows how difficult the government can find it to translate good intentions into sensible legislation' … Mr. Byatt said the Bill introduced a 'double jeopardy' for fines, empowering both the secretary of state for trade and industry and the water regulator to mete out penalties for the same offence … Mr. Byatt also criticised the Bill for failing to allow for an appeals procedure for penalised companies to go to the High Court or the Competition Commission."
  The regulator is right to draw attention to the absence of a right to appeal.
  Water UK, the trade association for the water companies, states:
  "Clauses 118 and 119 give powers to regulators to impose monetary penalties on companies for past and ongoing breaches of licence conditions",
  among other matters. It continues:
  "There is deep concern in the industry over the power in the Bill to set unlimited fines, as well as over the proposal that the regulator can define the penalty regime without formal agreement with Government or Parliament."
  On both counts, the House should be deeply worried about clauses 118 and 119. The right to set unlimited fines is almost unprecedented, and the House should not grant such a power to any regulator, however talented. I hope that the Government will reconsider that urgently in Committee.
  Sir Michael Spicer: I can say in its favour only that it is slightly better than provisions for the Financial Services Authority, which will be allowed to imprison people.
  Mr. Luff: I should have preferred it if my hon. Friend had not put that thought into the Government's mind, because they may propose an amendment to that effect. My hon. Friend has done the House a grave disservice by suggesting that draconian possibility. However, I strongly agree with his comment.

  837
  Let us consider electricity. According to the notes on clauses, the Bill is supposed to have regard to the interests of consumers in rural areas. Let us examine the current effect of regulation and the distribution price control review on consumers in rural areas of Worcestershire. It is a meteorological fact that the Almighty inflicts a disproportionate number of electrical strikes on Worcestershire. Any map of thunderstorm activity shows a heavy concentration of lightning activity in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire. That means that the Midlands Electricity Board faces a specific challenge in maintaining the supply. Two of the customers in my constituency are my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire and Lord Walker of Worcester, who are both former Energy Ministers. I am sure that they are anxious—as I am—to maintain the electricity supply.
  There is a need for MEB to increase investment in its rural network to maintain the supply to rural Worcestershire. The Bill will work against that. It will create uncertainty and increase the cost of capital. The Government's claims that it will reduce that cost are wrong and misplaced and show a lack of understanding of the way in which markets work. The measure will give regulators more discretion; that is bound to increase uncertainty. Its imposition of ill-defined social and environmental obligations will seriously affect the cost structure of an organisation such as MEB.
  The Bill has a Catch-22 predicament for MEB, because it provides for fines for interruptions but makes it more difficult to prevent interruptions because it denies the company the cash resources to do that. I hope that the Government will reconsider that.
  My objections to the Bill are based on detail and principle. The measure enshrines regulation. The Secretary of State, in his typically courteous, thoughtful and well argued opening remarks, appeared to prefer competition to regulation. The record will show that he said that. However, his actions do not suggest that he believes it. I issue a challenge to the Secretary of State to prove that his heart is in his assertion.
  Mr. Gummer: While my hon. Friend is discussing competition, will he explain how it increases competition to claim that coal-fired power stations are better than gas-fired power stations, despite the damage to the environment and the effect on climate change? Yet again, the Secretary of State has failed to explain why he went along with such a reactionary policy.
  Mr. Luff: My right hon. Friend answers his own point. I agree with him. I hesitate to use it, but the phrase that comes to mind is, "They say one thing and do another." That is characteristic of so much of the Government's actions. I do not understand how reducing electricity prices will help on climate change—it might increase consumption—but never mind. That is another issue that lies unresolved in the Bill.
  The Secretary of State ought to show that his heart is in his professed belief in competition. After clause 134, which is the commencement provision, he should insert a clause representing a completely new but worthwhile concept in legislation—a termination clause. He should
  838
  set a series of tests, rather like the Government's tests for the single European currency, that they could apply to competition in the industries. When they judged that competition had reached the required level they could remove the Bill from the statute book, which would prove that the Secretary of State is interested in competition—although I doubt it.
  The Government regulate water, telecoms, electricity, gas, rail, postal services, financial services and food—through the new Food Standards Agency—as well as almost every aspect of business, through the rising tide of regulation. The man from Whitehall knows best, as far as this lot are concerned, and all the commanding heights of the economy are covered. When he was a shadow trade and industry spokesman, the Prime Minister prophesied that a Labour Government would take control of all those things and his prophecy is coming true, but by the back door, not the front. About the only matter that the Government are deregulating is personal sexual behaviour, which is the one thing they should be regulating. Never mind; that is another debate for another day.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: That is a strange reading of this clause 28.
  Mr. Luff: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman knows what I am referring to; at least he is awake, and I am grateful for that.
  On 12 December 1988, today's Prime Minister said:
  "All those unresolved contradictions underline the stupidity, indeed the impossibility, of an energy policy determined by the interests of the private sector. The very considerations most critical to securing the long-term future electrical supply are the very ones least suited to the inevitable short-term demands of the market."
  That is the authentic voice of old Labour. He continued:
  "That is why, at the crux of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, lies a clash of interests that he cannot conceal between ideology that drags him toward market forces and reality that compels him to recognise the need for a strong public sector."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 680–88.]
  Now the boot is on the other foot. The clash of interests is the Prime Minister's—between the reality that drags him toward market forces and the ideology that compels him to recognise the need for a strong public sector—and it is encapsulated in the Bill. He and his Government have clearly opted for the public sector, not markets, and for regulation, not competition. That is a matter of deep regret.
  7.22 pm
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: After that excerpt from the horror movie "Nightmare on Deregulation Street", I welcome the Bill and join an impressive chorus of support from leading organisations with long and distinguished records in representing the interests of consumers. They would not be doing their job if they did not raise for our consideration aspects of the Bill that could be improved. I intend to discuss some of those later, but it is worth reflecting on some of the overwhelmingly positive points that they have made—particularly in view of the lack of any mention of these by Conservative Members in the Chamber—to see how much the regulatory system needs to be improved to benefit the consumer.

  839
  The National Consumer Council is
  "looking forward to a shift in the balance of regulation in favour of consumers, but we are also looking for a more accountable, open and consistent approach".
  It welcomes the provisions on
  "the elevation of the regulators' duty to protect consumers;
  the duty of the regulators to have regard to the interests of disadvantaged groups;
  the establishment of independent consumer councils;
  the powers for consumer councils to have direct access to utility company information rather than through the regulators;
  the replacement of individual regulators with regulatory authorities in energy and telecommunications;
  the provision for the Secretary of State to give those regulators guidance on social and environmental issues".
  The Consumers Association welcomes the Bill
  "to put consumers at the heart of public policy for our essential utilities … in particular the measures on financial penalties, reform of the electricity pool and the establishment of independent utility consumer councils."
  The national Electricity Consumers Council news release on the Bill states:
  "The Utilities Bill promises better protection and lower prices for consumers. The Regulator will be under a new primary duty to protect consumers and we will see the reform of the wholesale electricity market, which should cut bills by 13 per cent.
  In addition, we look forward to the creation of a new independent Consumer Council to represent the interests of electricity and gas consumers and to help them with their complaints.
  We shall be looking at the small print … We believe that electricity consumers, particularly disadvantaged people, need firm protection in the competitive market."
  Those comments suggest that those organisations share our aim to put consumers at the heart of utility regulation, which was set out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when she was President of the Board of Trade. She initiated an interdepartmental review of regulation two years ago, describing the objective as setting
  "a long-term stable framework for utility regulation, which is seen as fair by all the interest groups involved, particularly by consumers. Without fairness, there can be no long-term stability."—[Official Report, 30 June 1997; Vol. 297, c. 20W.]
  Conservative Members have made much of regulatory risk, but without stability we shall be unable to achieve a reduction in regulatory risk, the low costs of capital that they so much want and the benefits of that in respect of achieving price reductions. As usual, social justice and economic efficiency go hand in hand and they are achieved by regulatory stability and certainty, not deregulation. I commend to the attention of Conservative Members the price differential between Scottish Power and its rather more heavily regulated American parent company, Pacificorp. The charge through regulation there is about half that in the United Kingdom.
  The Bill represents a rare opportunity to place the interests of all consumers at the heart of public policy for those essential services. Utilities are a special case. Consumers can choose between different suppliers, but, unlike some other purchases, those services are essential. The health of consumers and the social cohesion of communities are damaged if consumer protection and regulation in those industries are not as good as they should be and the market is clearly not delivering benefits to all consumers. The November 1999 issue of "Energy Action", which is published by National Energy Action,
  840
  carries a report on poor electricity consumers under the title, "Poor consumers switched off by competition". It says:
  "Disadvantaged consumers are worse informed about electricity competition and less likely to have switched supplier. This is particularly true of low-income groups, those without a bank account and prepayment meter users. Only 2 per cent. or fewer of these groups have switched to date, compared to the national average of 5 per cent.
  The latest results of market research, commissioned by Ofgem and undertaken by MORI, suggest that companies could do more to inform low-income customers about the benefits of competition, in particular which payment method is the cheapest for their circumstances. Of those using prepayment meters, 26 per cent. thought they were using the cheapest payment method and a further 37 per cent. did not know."
  The same edition of the magazine carried a report entitled "Gas consumers harassed, ignored, confused". It says:
  "'The consumer experience is of being harassed on the doorstep, ignored if they're poor and fed with confusing information. If that's what it's like, who can blame consumers for staying with the devil they know rather than shopping round for gas.'
  Jenny Kirkpatrick, Chairman of the Gas Consumers Council, delivered this verdict on the competitive gas market following the release of new research on consumer views about switching suppliers …
  Further evidence of consumer dissatisfaction emerged from the GCC's analysis of complaints—up by 46 per cent. so far this year."
  More than half the 20,000 complaints were about services offered by new suppliers. Calortex had received nearly 3,000 complaints, Northern Electric more than 2,500, Swalec 2,163, Eastern Energy more than 2,000 and Scottish Power 1,532.
  We need to protect the interests of the fuel poor. At least 4.3 million households experience some degree of fuel poverty. In other debates, it has been pointed out that some face a choice between eating and heating, and the challenge of finding between 20 and 30 per cent. of their income with which to meet fuel bills. How would Opposition Members, in particular, feel about having to find that amount?
  Mr. Gibb: Will not the 29 per cent. real-terms cut in fuel bills that has taken place since privatisation have helped those people? Had fuel remained in the state sector, it is more than likely that prices would have increased by 29 per cent.
  Mrs. Gilroy: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I pointed out that, owing to the policies of a Conservative Government, the price of gas rose by 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation for each of the three years immediately preceding privatisation—which then brought prices down, but only after they had risen by a whacking 30 per cent. above the rate of inflation.
  Mr. Gibb: That was always the history of the electricity and gas industries when they were in the state sector. The Secretary of State would set prices; they would fall in the run-up to a general election, and would be hiked immediately after it. That was the pattern that governed the setting of prices, and that is what we sought to get rid of by privatising the companies involved.
  Mrs. Gilroy: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I was talking about a period in the 1980s when

  841
  his party was in power. Let me also remind him that, following the adjustment of the external financing limit, for a long time the gas industry contributed to the Treasury rather than the reverse.
  Let me turn to the concern that we feel for the fuel poor. As I have said, we have discussed the issues in other debates, and many of my constituents are having to find between 20 and 30 per cent. of their income to pay fuel bills. I am pleased that the new home energy efficiency scheme focuses much more on the fuel poor. The Government have doubled its budget and redesigned it to ensure that it is targeted on those who are most at risk from ill health caused by fuel poverty—the elderly, and families on low incomes.
  Good news came in October, when the energy regulator announced a £100 million two-year programme of energy efficiency targets for gas and electricity suppliers. That, too, will focus largely on the fuel poor. Early indications that the Government are serious about tackling fuel poverty were followed, in November, by confirmation that an inter-ministerial team would be set up, co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister and our noble Friend Lord Whitty, Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It will consider the impact of current programmes to develop a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem and how quickly it can be addressed, so that a target date can be set for the elimination of fuel poverty in England.
  I think that that ambition is shared by those on both sides of the House who are members of the all-party group. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is a regular and active member of the group, and other Opposition Members support it; but the Government are putting their money where their mouth is by introducing measures that can underpin the general aim.
  Clauses 8 and 12 give us a chance at long last to ensure that utility regulation makes a greater contribution to the achievement of our goals. They are important goals. If there is any doubt about how seriously the Government want to tackle them, I invite hon. Members to consider the inter-ministerial group's terms of reference and objectives, and the programme that has been planned to implement them.
  According to a response by my right hon. Friend the Minister to a question that I tabled on 10 January 2000, the programme of work includes improving identification of the fuel poor; researching the effect of changes in income, energy prices and energy efficiency; identifying the projected impact of existing and planned policies on the fuel poor; developing an understanding of the gap between the impact of those policies and fuel poverty objectives, and the policies and resources required to meet them; and developing a comprehensive strategy setting out Government fuel poverty objectives, policies to deliver them and targets and time scales for those objectives. The group will be invaluable as a means of informing the guidance that the Secretary of State will have powers to give the regulator under the Bill.
  There can be no doubt about the size of the task, or the importance of the contribution that the new powers in the Bill can make. I welcome the Bill, but I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to concerns felt by those in the consumer movement. Perhaps, in Committee, there
  842
  can be some clarification and amendment to ensure that the Bill achieves all that can be achieved to strike the best balance for consumers, the industry and the economy.
  If the aim is more regulatory certainty and all the benefits that derive from it, it is important for us to debate fully the concerns felt by experts. The main concerns—mentioned by the National Consumer Council, the Consumers Association, the Electricity Consumers Council, the Gas Consumers Council and Ofwat in their preliminary observations—relate to what is said about access to information, and the criteria that must be satisfied in order for consumer councils to publish information.
  Clause 22(6), which refers to the energy sector, refers to the powers that the Secretary of State will have to make regulations setting out descriptions of information, and circumstances in which information can be refused by the companies. I hope that my right hon. Friend will confirm that she will be willing to discuss how the regulations will be drafted, to ensure that they do not—as some fear—so tie the spokespeople that they are effectively silenced. I hope that she will also consider the suggestion made by the National Consumer Council and, I think, the Consumers Association that the right of appeal could be to the information commissioner under the Freedom of Information Bill, rather than to the regulator, whose decisions will be subject to scrutiny by the councils. They fear that there could be tension and conflict if the councils have to rely on the regulator to gain access to the information. The same point has been made by Ofwat's national customer council.
  These important points merit serious consideration, as does the right of disclosure. According to my reading of clause 21(6), information about energy will have to satisfy one of three criteria before the new consumer councils can publish information. The individual or body that would be subject to publication would have to have consented; the information would be available to the public from some other source; or the council would have to consider that to publish the information might not
  "seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual or body."
  If that reading is correct, the criteria seem to be weighted heavily in favour of the companies being able to claim that information should not be published.
  My right hon. Friend may be able to offer some reassurance about what clause 21(6) means. Perhaps it is the intention that, as in the Freedom of Information Bill, there will be a public interest test, but it does not seem to be there now. I hope that the Minister agrees that it should be.
  A further point has been brought to my attention by the Gas Consumers Council—a point well made in view of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) about the importance of safety. He said that a reduction in prices should not be at the price of health and safety. There is a clear safety remit for the council at the moment. However, under the Bill, the new consumer council does not appear to have a remit to investigate complaints regarding activities that are not licensed, including complaints about service, installation and repair of appliances, or general safety issues.
  Again, in the light of clause 21, the intention may be for the duty to continue, but it is difficult to understand how it will be workable or practicable to inform the Secretary of State of each individual complaint when,

  843
  in 1999, the council dealt with 5,500 such matters. Again, the Minister's clarification as to whether that is a correct reading—perhaps not this evening, but at some point in the discussions on the Bill—would be helpful.
  The Consumers Association is concerned at the lack of any mention of an advocacy or policy role for the councils. As many hon. Members have said, it is essential that the councils can fulfil the roles of consumer advocate and contributor to policy debates, as well as that of complaint handler and information provider. The lack of an advocacy role in the Bill will make it difficult for the council to ensure that it resources that essential side of its work. I would welcome the Minister's observations on why the Bill is less clear than previous legislation.
  I am curious to know more about why it has been thought right to depersonalise the energy and telecommunication regulatory bodies by appointing the sort of boards that are envisaged in clause 1 and schedule 1, and why an advisory panel is felt to be sufficient in clause 104 for the water industry. Arguably, we need an even stronger authority for the water industry than for the energy sector.
  Those are important issues and it is an important Bill. My knowledge of the House and its procedures stemmed from my involvement in the Gas Acts 1986 and 1995, when I was regional manager of the Gas Consumers Council in the south-west. The Bill deals with many of the issues for which I and my colleagues in the council argued fruitlessly in the face of opposition from the Conservative Government, who were not concerned about whether consumers would get a good deal, let alone a fair deal.
  The previous Government's approach was to privatise the utilities quickly. Consultation was negligible compared with the extensive consultation that the Minister and her colleagues have undertaken. The previous Government created a system that was inherently unstable and uncertain due to the highly personal, individual, even idiosyncratic character of some of the regulators.
  Prices have been higher than they need have been and the system has been biased towards shareholders. The Bill puts consumers first. It offers the chance of lower capital costs, which will be good for businesses and for consumers. It puts the quality of service in its rightful place and enables the wider issues of public policy relating to social and environmental obligations to take their proper place. It is a good Bill that will have my support. I commend it to the House and wish all power to the Minister's elbow in securing its speedy passage.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, which, so far, seems to have been based on the question: privatisation, good thing or bad—yes or no? With varying mixtures of embarrassment and triumphalism, it seems that the answer is that it was a good thing.
  I was a little surprised, particularly by some of the things that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said in relation to privatisation. He seems to have forgotten that one of the principal benefits of privatisation of the electricity industry as practised by the Conservatives is that it has allowed portions of it to be renationalised, but by the French. The idea that the Prime
  844
  Minister was nationalising the whole country by the back door struck me, and, I think, quite a number of other hon. Members, as somewhat comical.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) pointed out that it was easy to make calculations and to judge the correctness of policies in hindsight. I hope that the debate might turn its attention a little to foresight, and not dwell entirely on hindsight. A good foresight question is not about privatisation, but about energy policy. Should there be an energy policy and have we got an energy policy?
  At the moment, it is not clear that the Government have such a policy. They have plenty of aspirations. I fully sign up to most of them, as do my colleagues. The Government set energy targets, many of which are commendable, although we are some way short of achieving them. They have commissioned many energy reviews. We must ask whether the Bill plays a constructive part in taking those three things—reviews, aspirations and targets—to a state where implementation can begin.
  Having listened to Conservative Members, it seems that many of them are still in the age when oil and gas were laid down—the Jurassic age, when there was limitless oil, endless gas and plenty of fossils. Certainly, there was no threat of global warming.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman concede that, in the Jurassic age, there were no fossils, but that they were formed in that age, to be found in this age?
  Mr. Stunell: I assume that the hon. Gentleman was there at the time, but my O-level geology of quite a number of years ago tells me that he is 600 million years out. However, let us not worry too much about that—the typical gap in knowledge of Conservative policy makers.
  It is a pity that the Conservatives have ignored the long-term issues that the country and the planet face. I find that all the stranger because they are, after all, the party of inheritance: the party that believes in taking from our parents and preserving it for our children. However, in the utilities sector, they seem to be the party of get rich quick, sell the silver and ruin the planet. The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) had the best of it with his commitment to unbridled compulsory competition in all things, which at one moment seemed to stretch even to ensuring that rural electricity customers had to pay more than urban electricity customers, with the difference made up by a Government subsidy.
  It is a complete myth that no regulation and no regulatory system are needed in the energy industry, or in many other industries. The energy industry has always been closely regulated, and it will always need to be closely regulated. When one starts to unpick the mythology of the Conservatives, one can see almost immediately the folly and, to some extent, the hypocrisy of their argument. The Liberal Democrats' view is that what is needed to improve the Bill is almost exactly the opposite of the critique in the Conservatives' amendment. We need a strong regulatory framework to counterbalance the power of the markets.
  I remind Conservative Members that those who take part in a market want to sell more of their product at a higher price. They want to concentrate on profitable sales to customers who will pay promptly. A market player wants to exploit the lowest cost short-term resource that

  845
  is available. All those are entirely legitimate things for a player in the market to want to do, but they are hostile to the preservation of the environment and to the development of protection and defence of social justice. We shall therefore have to examine the Utilities Bill and decide the extent to which it will help to modify the market, to achieve some of those very necessary ends.
  Liberal Democrat Members believe that we can give a qualified and provisional yes to the Bill, but we also think that some of its provisions need to be strengthened.
  We have to have a regulatory system that increases efficiency in use of the product. As I said in an earlier intervention, although the market will certainly ensure that the generation side operates efficiently and at the lowest cost, the very last thing that a market maker wants to do is ensure that his product is used efficiently.
  The Bill will also have to ensure that the right fuel choices are made for the future. As hon. Members have said in the debate, although the Bill contains mechanisms to ensure that renewables play a more active part in the generation market, there are still considerable concerns about how they will operate. There are certainly concerns about the impact of the mechanisms on combined heat and power.
  In the past 10 years, the market has helped the Government to meet their targets—although the more cynical might say that the market has defined what those targets should be by making its CO2 savings in the switch from coal to gas. As hon. Members have already said, however, that dash for gas has its limits. Once we have dashed and all the coal is stopped, there will be no more CO2 savings to be made by letting the market rip.
  Meanwhile, as has been pointed out many times, the nuclear sector of the generating market will drop out and, unless it can be replaced by renewables or some other low-carbon emission technology, the market will drive CO2 emissions in the wrong direction. The Utilities Bill will have to lay the foundations for ensuring that that does not happen.
  Mr. Gibb: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Liberal Democrats' energy policy is that, when nuclear power starts coming off stream as Magnox stations are decommissioned, they will regulate the system even more, and that that will address entirely the issues of what to replace nuclear power with and the huge increase in CO2 emissions expected from 2020 onwards?
  Mr. Stunell: It is perhaps fortunate for Liberal Democrat Members that we do not have the one-eyed, one-lever policy-making process operated by Conservative Members, who have thrown all their weight behind competition. It is utter fantasy to think that it is even remotely feasible that, by 2020, CO2 emissions will be as low as they are now, let alone 10, 12.5 or 20 per cent. lower than now. The hon. Gentleman, who speaks for the official Opposition, cannot possibly be arguing that competition provides the means of meeting those targets.
  Mr. Gibb: What is the Liberal Democrats' policy?
  Mr. Stunell: If the hon. Gentleman is interested in that, I should be very happy to sell him a copy of the book that I published last September.
  846
  We shall also have to ensure that the Bill provides the means of reaching the emissions targets that the Government have set themselves, first, in accepting the Kyoto targets, and, secondly, in establishing their own domestic target for 2010. The Bill will also have to establish a framework to give electricity generators some certainty for their investment plans beyond 2010.
  The Bill will have to provide a framework to protect the weak and vulnerable in society. The hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) have stated some of the necessities of achieving that goal.
  How do we judge the Bill against those criteria? Although I share some of the concerns that have been expressed about the new electricity trading arrangements—NETA—I accept that they might well produce lower prices. Nevertheless, although I am not quite as sceptical as some Conservatives have been on the subject, it remains to be seen the extent to which those lower prices materialise. One consequence is clear: the new arrangements will make it significantly harder for new entrants and small players to enter the electricity generating market. It is also clear that those new entrants and smaller players will generally be the renewables and the combined heat and power players.
  The Bill therefore seems to fall at the first hurdle, as it would seem both to inhibit and to promote the introduction of renewable generating capacity at the same time. I plead with Ministers to do what they can to join up their thinking, to ensure that the Bill is coherent in its policy aims and reflects fully what all Departments wish to achieve. In Committee, Liberal Democrat Members will make some detailed points and criticisms on those issues.
  Liberal Democrat Members want regulatory guidelines that are tough in delivering environmental objectives and impose on the market some long-term objectives, which the market itself is very poor at adapting to voluntarily—bad money drives out good; short-termism drives out long-termism. If we want to achieve a good environmental outcome, we shall have to find a way of imposing on the market a framework that not only allows profitable operation, but achieves those environmental outcomes.
  The regulatory guidelines need to be tough in securing the objective of the elimination of fuel poverty. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton certainly spelt out some of the issues of fuel poverty, but there are other issues—such as how sufficient funding could be generated to tackle the national disgrace of fuel poverty. Other issues that have to be brought within the regulatory framework are warm homes, pricing and disconnections.
  The regulatory system needs to be tough on greed. We must have a system that allows sufficient profit to be generated for investment, and we should allow sufficient head-room for companies and market participants to achieve the targets that are being established for them—no one could argue with either of those statements—but we have to have effective penalties for those who are greedy and those who fail.
  In judging the Bill, we need to look beyond it. We have to consider the Government's long-term aims, and we have to have an idea of the firm action planned by the Government. That information is not in the Bill, and we should not expect it to be there. As the Bill is passed, however, please, may we ensure that none of the Bill's

  847
  provisions will stand in the way of the longer-term objectives that the Government claim that they want to achieve?
  The industry itself wants certainty, but it is not as fundamentally opposed to regulation as some Conservative Members would have us believe. The industry wants a sure and steady framework in which it will be able to take its investment decisions and develop its marketing strategies.
  From that point of view, however, one regulatory framework is not a lot different from another. A regulatory framework that requires the industry to subsidise rural consumers is neither better nor worse than one that requires it to subsidise poor consumers. A regulatory framework that ensures the entry of new participants to create a competitive market with multiple participants is neither better nor worse than a regulatory system that insists on long-term investment decisions to bring new technologies to the market.
  The industry is concerned not so much about regulation as about the uncertainty and the fickleness of Government policies, from whichever Department they may originate.
  Liberal Democrat Members want to see evidence of joined-up thinking not only in the Bill, but beyond it. We should like to achieve an all-party consensus on the direction of the United Kingdom's energy policy for the next 20, 30 or 40 years. We should like a Bill that allows investment, but not excessive profit taking. We should like a Bill that allows the energy industry to be reshaped, but not simply on the basis of a little bit here and a little bit there.
  When it comes to matching society's environmental objectives with its economic growth objectives, what we do with energy—how we control and develop it—will determine whether we are able to have one, the other, both or neither. If we do not get it right—this Bill gives us an opportunity to begin to get it right—it is highly likely that we will finish up with neither.
  I want to give two cheers to the Bill, and there are many points that we will want to bring forward in Committee. I hope very much that the Minister and the Secretary of State will take our critical support in the spirit in which it is intended—to see good outcomes for Britain.
  8 pm
  Mr. John Cryer: I did not think that Conservative Members would be able to bring the issue of personal sexuality into this debate on the Utilities Bill, but I underestimated the skills and the neurosis of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff).
  The Bill will be widely welcomed by the people we represent. It is widely recognised that as well as being a good Bill, it is extremely timely. I should have thought that Opposition Members would have seen the Bill as a blatant attack on privatisation, and that privatisation should be defended in every way possible. That seems to have been the response from Opposition Front Benchers and some others, but there is no fevered throng of Conservatives on the Back Benches ready to defend privatisation to the nth degree.
  I suspect that the Opposition Benches are empty because privatisation is now difficult to defend politically—particularly since the Ladbroke Grove train crash. My view is that a shift in public opinion was under way a long time before that, but that the crash was the
  848
  crystallisation of the public feeling that privatisation had amounted to a considerable rip-off. We see today that ownership of the utilities is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, and that makes the Bill all the more timely.
  The myth of Mrs. Thatcher's popular capitalism was that we would all end up as shareholders. That simply has not happened, and shares have moved to the bigger players in each market. When the electricity companies were privatised, they were sold to 9 million small shareholders. Three years ago, the number of shareholders had fallen to 2 million. Since then, the figure has carried on plummeting like a stone.
  Many of the companies buying into British electricity and generating companies are American companies which have very poor track records on that side of the Atlantic—companies such as Southern, Pacificorp and Texas. The real motive behind privatisation—contrary to all the baroque and technocratic arguments advanced by Conservative Members—was to get taxpayers' money into the pockets of their friends in the City. A helpful spin-off was that the unions, by and large, would be broken. It is interesting that electricity companies are now insisting on dealing with smaller and smaller bargaining units to undercut and do away with the power of organised labour within the industries.
  A welcome element in the Bill is the creation of the consumer councils within the utilities. That was envisaged for all nationalised industries in the 1930s and 1940s, but was never fulfilled. Nevertheless, it was a plan for the publicly owned industries, and I am glad to see it being brought in under the Bill.
  The Bill does not seem to have a particular concern with protecting low-income users—the poorer customers who have suffered since privatisation. It is true that disconnections—particularly in the electricity sector—have reduced, but having said that, Eastern Electricity, which covers my area, is the third highest in the country in terms of disconnections.
  Disconnections have reduced, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) pointed out, people are disconnecting themselves by default. The installation of meters has become much more common. If people cannot afford to put money in the meters, they get disconnected. When I was a kid, meters were seen as old-fashioned and were being done away with as we moved towards a constant supply of electricity. Now we are moving back in time, and poorer people are being given meters by electricity companies—and, for that matter, by water companies.
  The Water Industry Act 1999 did a great deal of good in the water industry and it gave powers to the regulators. However, we have seen the increasing installation of water meters quickly and against people's will, because the companies know that the new powers in the Act will mean that in future people cannot have water meters installed against their will. The water companies are in a mad rush to install water meters as rapidly as possible in people's homes. That has certainly happened in the area that I represent, and I assume that it has happened in other areas as well.
  Surely an advocacy role should be a statutory duty for the consumer councils—something that does not seem to be in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) pointed out. In the economic conditions that we face today, I would have

  849
  thought that an advocacy role was crucial, and I would have liked to see it in the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say something about that.
  The Consumers Association has put forward the interesting notion of consumer impact assessments. The idea is that the utilities should be called upon to make assessments to see how their policies and how they run their companies will affect consumers in the future. That is a sensible idea, and I would like to hear my right hon. Friend's response to that.
  I am concerned also with the deep-mined coal industry. It is crucial that we maintain a diversity of energy supply, and that means maintaining a deep-mined coal industry. It does not mean buying coal from the Rotterdam spot market or from the heavily subsidised German coal industry—it means maintaining a solid supply of deep-mined coal in this country.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister, who has had representations on this issue, will know that two pits in this country are currently faced with closure—Clipstone and Ellington in the north-east. In the past year, since the generating regime was changed by the Government, four or five pits have closed. If we carry on in the current manner, within five or six years every deep mine in Britain will close. That would be welcomed by Conservative Members. The closure of the mines, and the evisceration and butchery of the mining communities, was something that they set out to do in 1979 and finally achieved in the 1990s. They took enormous pleasure in that. It was interesting that Ministers in the previous Government were busy privatising, ripping off the taxpayer and selling things off left, right and centre—and then they went and took jobs in the privatised industries.
  Tim Eggar, an Energy Minister in the previous Government who happily closed down pits and ruined communities, ran off and got a job in the energy sector. That was outrageous behaviour, and entirely typical of the Conservatives. It shows what contempt for public service the Conservatives really have. What effect does my right hon. Friend the Minister think the Bill will have on the deep-mined coal industry? We must not forget that we are not far from the day when gas and oil begin to run out. We are standing on 600 years' supply of coal. If we continue to close the deep mines, that coal will become inaccessible. Once the ground is broken and the shaft has been sunk and then closed, the coal cannot be accessed in any way.
  I am concerned also about the World Trade Organisation and the European Union, and their attitude towards all sectors of the economy, including the energy sector. If my reading of WTO and EU policy is right—particularly with regard to the multilateral agreement on investment—we might see, in future, the WTO intervening in the energy sector and declaring illegal actions such as the moratorium on gas-fired power stations. Its rulings in recent months show that it is already moving in that direction, which is extremely worrying.
  If an American company decided to burn orimulsion, the most toxic basic fuel in the world, somewhere in Britain, and the Government intervened to stop it on environmental grounds, under the proposed rules the company could go back to the WTO and get that action
  850
  declared illegal, and sanctions could be imposed on Britain. That is an academic scenario at present, but I would like to hear my right hon. Friend's views on it.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: We have just heard the authentic voice of old Labour. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) has defended the mining industry, in which people might have a decent community but suffer from every coronary and lung dysfunction under the sun. He might welcome people going down into some 19th century hell, but I am pleased that they have managed to find other jobs in safer industries and are earning more money. Going back to the industries of the 19th and 18th centuries does nothing for Labour party ideals or for the mining communities.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned empty Benches. I did a quick calculation and worked out that, as a proportion of the number of seats that we hold, there is a greater percentage of Conservative than Labour Members present. The House is not packed because there is some consensus on the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) called for two cheers. I would not go that far; I would call for one. The reasoned amendment says that the Bill
  "contains worthwhile provisions for merging the electricity and gas regulatory authorities, for separating the licensing of supply and distribution of electricity and for introducing new electricity trading arrangements".
  The world turns—at least for the rest of the Labour party, if not for the hon. Member for Hornchurch. Despite what they said in the 1990s, the Government accept that privatisation is a good thing. Privatisation is here to stay. The Bill builds on Conservative party legislation to regulate the privatised industries.
  We want the privatised industries to succeed, not necessarily for the shareholders but for the consumers. We feel that the Bill needs amendment on that point. The reasoned amendment says:
  "it also contains measures which increase regulation and intervention by government in the utilities sector; which impair transparency and accountability in the regulatory framework; which add to industry costs which will ultimately be passed on to consumers".
  It is nonsense, and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how the economy works, to argue that the Bill is for consumers. The reasoned amendment goes on to say that the legislation
  "will introduce powers to levy unlimited fines; and which significantly undermine the independence of the regulators."
  One or two Labour Members have spoken against the privatised industries. Let me remind the House that disconnections in the electricity industry have fallen by more than 99 per cent. since privatisation. There were 80,557 in the year before privatisation, but only 375 last year. That is something of which we can all feel proud and for which we do not have to make excuses. Privatisation has worked and nobody on the Government Benches, with the exception of the hon. Member for Hornchurch, still argues that any of the industries should be renationalised.
  Mr. John Cryer: I never said that.
  Mr. Fabricant: If the hon. Gentleman did not say that, he may have implied it.

  851
  What are the other benefits of privatisation? In real terms, there has been a 29 per cent. fall in domestic electricity prices, a 29 per cent. fall in domestic gas prices and a 50 per cent. fall in domestic telecoms prices. That is an achievement to be proud of.
  Mr. Cryer: Why do people who use meters pay a higher rate for electricity than those who pay by direct debit?
  Mr. Fabricant: It costs more to maintain meters than to get payment by electronic transfer. If people have a bank account and are able to pay by direct debit, they are not subsidising those on meters. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there should be a social policy? Does he intend to table an amendment to say that the Government should instruct utilities companies to implement a social policy?
  The Government are responsible for not only a nanny state that intervenes and misunderstands how business operates, but a state that tries to create envy. That is the state that talked about "fat cats" in the general election campaign. What is the real level of directors' pay? It rose by an average of 4.5 per cent. in the past 12 months, according to the latest survey of Institute of Directors members carried out by the Reward group. That compares with an increase of 5.1 per cent. in the overall economy. The survey also showed that directors' pay is forecast to rise by an average of only 4 per cent. in the coming year. Far from being fat cats, directors' pay lags behind the growth of the rest of the economy. More than half the executive directors surveyed had a pay increase of 4 per cent. or less; only 18 per cent. had an increase of more than 6 per cent; and nearly 40 per cent. took an increase below 3 per cent.
  It does not matter what industry we are talking about: if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Even the John Lewis Partnership, an organisation that the Prime Minister himself called the stakeholder business personified, recognises that it has to pay market rates to get people of the right calibre.
  Mr. Chaytor: Do the figures that the hon. Gentleman cited apply to privatised utilities or to all companies? If they apply to privatised utilities, do they apply to the chairmen?
  Mr. Fabricant: It depends on which utilities the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The figures are taken from the Institute of Directors and are produced by the Reward group for all directors. I hope that that answers the question.
  If people of calibre are to be attracted to an organisation, it has to pay the going rate. Does the hon. Gentleman argue with that? The John Lewis Partnership, which is owned by the 40,000 partners who work for it, recognises that fact. Frankly, there is nothing wrong with that. I would rather that the utilities industries were run properly and efficiently than by people who mean well but are not of the calibre to do the job.
  Mr. Chaytor: How is it, then, that the people who were not attracted to the utilities but were in post when they were first privatised also got astronomical pay rises? If the hon. Gentleman accepts that there should be a link
  852
  between pay and ability, does he not support the concept in the Bill that there should be some transparency about directors' pay and that it should be linked to performance?
  Mr. Fabricant: I agree with some of what the hon. Gentleman says, but performance is not the only factor. Greater risk is involved in employment in a privatised industry. For example, when Severn Trent was privatised, the chairman left after a couple of years. Risk increases how much one is paid. That is why Ministers are paid more than ordinary Back Benchers. Deputy Chief Whips are also paid more than Back Benchers, for reasons of risk and job insecurity.
  One newspaper said of the Bill:
  "It is almost as if this Government has forgotten that the utilities have been privatised. They are none of them perfect, but the standards of service and efficiency in gas and electricity have been transformed since they were sold. Competition in both industries is growing, and prices are coming down as a result.
  Despite the evidence from health and education, there remains a widespread belief that government controls can improve things, which is what encourages this sort of useless legislation. If Mr. Byers must interfere, it should be to ensure more competition, not more rules on irrelevances such as directors' pay."
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned transparency, and I agree that pay should be transparent. It is, to the extent that all utilities are public limited companies and the Companies Acts require directors' pay to be specified in the annual report. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman thinks that details of directors' pay should be contained in a newsletter that goes out with the bills. If he is suggesting that, I would not necessarily argue with him because the information is already in the public domain. However, that should be done only if the company already intended to send out a leaflet, because I would not want to see extra paperwork being sent out and thus the costs of the basic utilities being driven up.
  The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) mentioned the Consumers Association, but I wish to mention the Consumer Council that will be introduced by the Bill. The Conservative party welcomes that, as does British Telecom, but the latter is concerned that there is a potential overlap between the responsibilities of the Telecommunications Authority and the council. BT claims that that overlap will be inefficient and could lead to conflict—for example, the duty of the council to investigate any complaint and the power of investigation on any matter of consumer interest.
  British Telecom is also concerned about fines. It has stated:
  "The appeal grounds for fines are very limited and do not align for example with the recent Statutory Instrument. In contrast with the Competition Act 1998 there is no limit on what might be an 'appropriate' fine".
  Someone earlier said that if the level of bills was predictable, the privatised industries could budget accordingly. My point is that if there is no limit on fines or penalties, they will not be able to do so. A useful amendment to the Bill would be to set maximum fine levels, or for the types of offence to be graded.
  British Telecom is also concerned about the cost of regulation. I remind hon. Members that when we talk about costs to companies, we are also talking about costs to consumers. We are not talking about the tiny

  853
  percentage of companies' costs that directors' pay constitutes: we are talking about costs that will be passed on to consumers in their utility bills. BT has said:
  "The Bill proposes further regulation for telecommunications when the need is diminishing in a highly competitive market. The overlap in responsibilities between the Authority and the Council will lead to inefficiencies and cost. The cost of the Council is to be raised via supplementary licence fees (which need bear no relation to cost causation)".
  I dislike that jargon, but it means that the charges made for the Consumer Council may not be linked to the actual cost of running it. How will that licence fee be set? BT continued:
  "and there is no ceiling, this is critical when the Council is able to investigate any matter of consumer interest. Several of the proposals in the Bill amount to micro-management which will mean further costs for regulated companies."
  Micro-management is yet another example of how the Government cannot resist interfering in the running of companies, through Government agencies.
  New Labour has failed to move away from its old interventionist policies. Yet again, the Secretary of State has demonstrated that dogma has prevailed over economics. I had to laugh when he said that the Conservatives were driven by dogma in privatising the utilities, when he is building on that privatisation in the Bill. I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman, at least in that respect, acknowledges the value of privatised industries and accepts the economic reality.
  I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman—it is a shame he is not in his place—on his view of the minimum working wage. He now recognises the damage that it has done in certain areas and certain industries and has said that he will fix it so that its value decreases in real terms over the next year. He has taken on board the economic facts about which we have been warning him for the past year.
  The Secretary of State will also recognise, eventually, the damage that parts of the Bill will do—and I hope that it, too, will wither on the vine. At the moment, the nanny state prevails, and once again the scales have tipped heavily in favour of regulation in the balance between state intervention and the free market. That will not be for the benefit of consumers because the costs will be passed on.
  8.28 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I became somewhat excited earlier in the debate when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) suggested that the Bill was an attempt to introduce socialism by the back door. What an exciting prospect. I became even more excited when he suggested that intervention by the Government in a pure market was a damaging and distorting factor, and that all consumers, wherever they lived, should bear the real cost—including the fixed cost and the marginal costs—of energy supply.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the courage to mention that to the rural communities where his party will canvass for votes. What he suggests would mean a devastating increase in the costs of access to energy and water, and it would be pretty much the kiss of death for many of those communities. However, he suggested mechanisms for balancing out the way that open and unregulated market systems create their own gross
  854
  inequalities. He said that that task was best left for the Government. This was the first time that I had heard a Conservative party member so openly make the case for substantial tax increases. I was very interested, and would welcome any indications from Conservative Members about the scale of tax increases they would entertain in going down that ideological route.
  A more appropriate starting point, however, may be found in the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). He described the meteorological conditions that affect Worcestershire, and noted that the county is disproportionately affected by disruptions to the energy supply caused by lightning and electrical storms. I suggest that the Bill is a modest way of supplementing God's imperfect attempts to strike back at Tory Members who saddled us with the dog's breakfast that was the privatisation of utilities. Before privatisation, the public—rightly, and proudly—believed that they owned those utilities.
  I welcome the Bill and what it proposes. It is timely for us to take stock of the legacy of privatisation. In my view, the privatised utilities have pillaged the country in four ways. They have consistently put the shareholder before the citizen. They have put the continuous supply of dividends before the continuous supply of gas and electricity to the public. They have put short-term job cutting before the long-term reduction of pollution and investment in sustainable technologies, and they have put the private right to profiteer before the public right to know.
  The Bill will start to tackle the deficiencies in the Government's inheritance, and I welcome it. The records of the Conservative Government, and of the privatisations that we are discussing tonight, fail two fundamental tests—the tests of poverty reduction and of consumer accountability.
  Comparative figures for poverty reduction are instructive, as they help us realise that the fuel poor are not merely those who are disconnected. The equation is complete only when the substantial number of people who self-disconnect are taken into account. In other words, invisible disconnections make up the total picture.
  Figures from the Consumers Association show that there were 29,500 gas disconnections in 1998, and that 24,250 warrants were issued that allowed electricity industry personnel to force entry into people's properties and replace conventional meters with pre-payment meters. In the same year, a national MORI poll found that there were also some 428,000 gas self-disconnections, and 926,000 electricity self-disconnections.
  That is the extent of the backlog of fuel poverty that privatised energy industries have barely begun to recognise, let alone touch. People are revolted at the fact that fuel poverty remains a scar on the United Kingdom's social landscape at the start of the 21st century. Each winter, fuel poverty causes between 30,000 and 60,000 deaths. That is just a sliver of the number of households and individuals whose lives are blighted by fuel poverty. I make no apology for praising the Government for putting the eradication of fuel poverty at the centre of their agenda for dealing with the regulation of energy supply and utilities management in the United Kingdom.
  I also said that the record fails the test of consumer accountability. I had extensive correspondence with Severn Trent Water after the regulator came up with his

  855
  provisional price determination, leading up to the time of the actual price determination and the industry's response to it. I went through the regulator's comments with great care. The most important was that he was clear that there was no logic in the industry responding to his recommended price cut by saying that it could not meet increased standards of performance, or the environmental aspirations that the Government rightly set out, or expand the public services to which it would otherwise have been committed.
  The regulator looked at the claims and dismissed each one in turn. Water is a de facto monopoly industry. It is low risk in the sense that no one is going to wake up tomorrow morning so furious with the service that the industry provides and the prices that it charges that they would boycott drinking water and stick to drinking sump oil. We are all captive consumers of water. In that sense, it is an extremely safe industry in which to operate. The regulator pointed out that, since privatisation, the level of internal self-reward in the industry had been far higher than he or anyone else in their right mind could justify. He pointed out that the internal cost of capital, financed by borrowing or from receipts, would be half the amount that the company was paying in rewards to its shareholders and directors. That was the stark message. The regulator required current and planned investment programmes to be funded internally.
  The industry's response was derisory. It virtually ignored all the regulator's exhortations to look for internal methods of financing its programmes. It launched a programme of short-term job cuts that will probably result in 10,000 job losses across the country. Just a couple of weeks ago, all hon. Members representing east midlands constituencies received a letter from Severn Trent in which it gave us notice of the loss of 1,100 jobs and the closure of eight offices across the midlands. The industry had decided to take those measures so as not to make intrusive inroads on the levels of self-reward to which their shareholders had become accustomed. Against that backcloth—the weaknesses that the Government inherited—we have to push for stronger regulatory powers and for more extensive duties to be placed on the industry.
  I was fascinated to hear Conservative Members talk about the nanny state. In truth, the arrangements proposed in the Bill are already in place throughout the United States of America and Canada. The Conservatives usually like to heap praise on those parts of the global economic system. But the American and Canadian approach to private utilities says that we cannot trust private hands to hold them without extensive directions on duties and obligations and without massively strengthened social and consumer rights. People must know what is happening, and be able to scrutinise the claims and accounts of companies and hold them accountable. We should carefully examine the regulatory regimes that give rights to citizens in north America and which we do not yet begin to approach within the framework proposed in the Utilities Bill.
  At the end of the last Session, I tabled an early-day motion praising the initiatives taken by one electricity company in the United Kingdom. I praised it for making a radical change in its approach to energy policy. Let me spell out what Scottish Power proposed to do, although, to be fair, I should add that other companies might have suggested the same.
  856
  Scottish Power offered a written guarantee that it would introduce a lifeline rate of charges for the poor. It offered a three-year energy conservation programme, funded entirely by shareholders. It proposed to reduce standing charges to 55p per month. It proposed that there would be no winter disconnections. Finally, it offered to reduce unit charges to 4p per kilowatt hour. As if that cake were not big enough, the company added a cherry: a commitment to a price rebate of £25 million shared by all consumers.
  The point of my praise for Scottish Power was simple. If the company was prepared to put that written deal on the table as part of an offer to buy Pacificorp and as a commitment to the citizens of Utah, why could it not make the same commitment to consumers in the United Kingdom? I do not want to put Scottish Power unfairly on the spot; any UK energy company that had made a bid for a United States energy company would have had to make exactly the same open commitments to meet a series of environmental, social and employment obligations that go hand in hand with the free-market regime there.
  The Americans and Canadians know full well that the free market will, if left to its own devices, simply result in oligopolies that run away with profits at the expense of the consumer, society and the environment. They therefore build in regulatory constraints that limit the power to exploit people and the planet in the way that the Conservatives were so keen to do.
  There are similar regulatory arrangements for water that give consumers the right to hold open hearings at which companies are required to spell out not only their price proposals, but their commitments on investment, employment, the rate of return on capital, and the environment. I ask the Secretary of State to consider carefully that framework of civic rights, with a view to including it in the Bill in Committee, thus strengthening its commitments.
  One of the great strengths for the utilities under the proposed framework is that, if they are required to work to open-book scrutiny, we shall make them genuinely more efficient and accountable. One of the myths that we have been saddled with, as a legacy of the Conservative years, is the con of competition. So much of the framework set up by the Conservatives is cloaked in the mists of commercial confidentiality. If one asks which bids have gone in, one is told, "We can't tell you, because it is commercially confidential." If one asks about environmental impact, one is told the same thing. To give the information would expose the company to the risk of being outbid by one of its competitors.
  We have been saddled with a process of collusion. By and large, the role of the regulator, in coming to a view on price determination, has been to announce the recommended price, after a long process of private consultation with the companies concerned. I asked the regulator why he went about it in that way. His response was that, in private, he could hold hard-nosed discussions and negotiations and get utility companies to admit points that they would never concede in public; that gave the UK a better deal than if all the discussions were held in public.
  Recently, some Labour Members were fortunate enough to hear a presentation by Greg Palast. In this country, he is possibly best known as a business journalist, who writes for The Observer, but he has an international reputation as an extremely experienced utilities regulator in the United States. He pointed out that no similar private discussions took place in the USA.

  857
  Some states had paddled in those waters, but had come to a different conclusion. Their conclusion was stark; it might shock some hon. Members, but not, I suspect, people outside this place. They discovered that, in private, the companies lied through their teeth. The process resembled the "Arabian Nights" tales. Like Scheherazade, representatives of large corporations would talk through the night to ensure that their super-normal profits were not executed in the morning. They would come up with whatever magical tale was needed to stop the intrusion of public interest into private profits.
  The Americans discovered that if their citizens—not merely citizens' organisations—had the right to hold open hearings, someone would nail the lies that companies were trying to wing past the regulator, either because people had a commercial interest in being the successful bidder, or because they had an environmental or social interest and went through the company accounts with a fine-toothed comb. If we want open markets, we have to have open books. Markets must be prepared to pay that price. Public rights of scrutiny, not private rights of discussion, will best protect the rights of UK citizens.
  Greg Palast also made the interesting point that, in many states, Americans go further than that and ask, "If regulators are to be accountable, what is the best way to achieve it?" Those of us who are Members of Parliament would say that it would be periodically to present ourselves to the electorate and to accept their judgment on our record. At least eight US states do exactly that. Their regulators are elected. They have to stand for election and are judged on their records. If the public think that they have been sold down the river, the regulator will go the way of all electoral false promises and someone else who is better is put in their place. It is about public rights, not private and corporate deals.
  When we give the Bill, as I hope we will, its Second Reading, we should ask how it can be genuinely strengthened to give consumers in this country many of the rights that their counterparts enjoy, but which we have never been offered. When we create the consumer councils, it is important that they have the right to know, the right to advocate and the right to appeal. Some parts of the Bill are confusing in that they suggest that consumer councils may have a right to know, but that they may not have a right to tell anyone. It is a strange basis for advocacy if those who are charged with the responsibility of representing the public cannot tell the public of the campaigns being mounted on their behalf. We should be unafraid of extending those rights.
  We should also extend the right to appeal. I see no valid reason why a Labour Government should be afraid of enshrining in the Bill a public right of appeal to the information commissioner. That would be our best protection against the charges that we are colluding with the corrupting practices that were set in place by the Conservative Government.
  The Bill should also contain defined anti-poverty targets. In the Scottish parliamentary elections, the Labour party was proud to set forth a commitment that it would eliminate fuel poverty within two terms. The whole House should be willing to sign up to that commitment and we should want to enshrine it in our commitments for an inclusive energy policy.
  858
  We should also require a commitment that there will be no disconnections. Utility companies should know that if they disconnect the public, they should expect to disconnect their own dividends. I would be quite happy to link that issue with directors' pay or, perhaps, to limit dividends on the basis that companies can produce distributed profits only to the level at which they have invested in renewable energies. At least their boards would then know the environmental priorities that we were setting them for the coming century.
  I hope that, in Committee, we shall make a commitment to give people in Britain the consumer rights that they have in north America and the environmental rights that we demanded at Kyoto. Currently, poor survival prospects blight the lives of the 15 million people who make up Britain's fuel poor. They exist throughout the country and they have not had one jot of interest from the privatised industries in finally bringing to an end the scandal of fuel poverty. I hope that we have the courage to address all those issues and to redress the omissions when the Bill is in Committee.
  8.53 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the authentic voice of traditional Labour. I disagree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, and I shall quote a topical example that I hope will bring home to him the difference between privatisation in practice and leaving utilities in the public sector.
  I very much support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other right hon. and hon. Friends. The second part of it epitomises the concerns that I and many others have about the Bill. It will effectively nationalise the former independent regulation; it will bring in new controls over private enterprise; it will introduce new stealth subsidies that will distort competition; and it will give new powers and duties to regulators to impose extra-parliamentary taxation to pay for those stealth subsidies and the extra regulation.
  The topical example that I shall quote is a story of what has happened in Scotland during the past week. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South will know about it if only because the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) referred to it following my intervention.
  We have just been told that as a result of the water industry remaining in the public sector, water charges in the north of Scotland will increase by no less than 51 per cent. over the next two years, so the average water bill will go up from £175 to £264.60 in 2001–02. There are three Scottish regions for the purposes of the water companies, and the water authorities in the west and east of Scotland will also increase water bills, by 15 per cent. next year and 12 per cent. the following year.
  It is clear from another story that appeared in The Herald last week that the Government have one law for the public sector and another for the private sector. We know that the Government, and the Government of Scotland, are saying that water charges should increase to that extent because that is a reasonable price to pay for continuing to have Scotland's water industry under public control.
  At the same time, the Minister of State, Scotland Office argued in a letter to The Herald last Thursday—the same day on which those large increases in water charges were

  859
  announced—that it would be perfectly reasonable to impose a burden on private oil companies by requiring them to cross-subsidise the cost of fuel in the highlands and islands, where the average pump price is 7.2p per litre higher than in the Scottish conurbations. However, he saw no problem with those living in the highlands and islands paying some 50 per cent. more for their water because that industry is in the public sector.
  That vivid, recent example from Scotland epitomises what is at the heart of the Government's thinking, which is to have one policy for the public sector and another for the private sector.
  Mr. Stunell: Was the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber when his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) appeared to be saying that the same logic should apply to the supply of electricity to rural areas? He suggested that it would be proper for the utilities to charge rural areas a higher rate, and that the Government should provide a subsidy from state funds to equalise expenditure. Is he familiar with that argument, and does he support it?
  Mr. Chope: I did not hear my hon. Friend's argument, but I shall certainly read the Official Report so that I can acquaint myself with it.
  It is absolutely essential that regulators are independent. The Bill establishes a regime of what I might call super-regulators, and one of the key differences between them and their predecessors is that they will not be independent. The Government may have reluctantly decided, for pragmatic reasons, to go along with the surrender of state ownership of the nationalised industries, but in this Bill they are effectively taking back centralised control. The authors of clause IV would be justifiably proud of that. It is an act of socialism by stealth.
  The regulator's independence will be compromised because he will be wholly beholden to the Secretary of State. I tabled some parliamentary questions, two of which were answered today by the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. One question was whether there would be any limit on the level of remuneration or allowances payable to the regulator at the behest of the Secretary of State. The answer is that there will be no limit.
  Perhaps even more sinister is the fact that there will be no limit on the compensation that the Secretary of State can agree to pay if he decides to dispense with the services of the regulator if he has crossed the Secretary of State in some way. The Bill uses the term "misbehaviour". That means that the Secretary of State will have supreme power, and if the regulator fails to do his bidding, he can dismiss him without notice and has sole discretion as to whether he gives him a substantial golden handshake from taxpayers' money. If ever there were an example of where a Secretary of State has all the cards and where the independence of the regulator is capable of being compromised, I suggest that it is in the Bill. I hope that we will have the chance to explore the matter more fully in Committee.
  I am concerned that the Bill seems to provide double standards on price controls. An increasing amount is being written about the unbridled power of self-financing regulatory authorities and their power to impose costs on those whom they regulate. The appetite of the regulators to regulate others knows no limits, but they are not so
  860
  keen to submit their own costs to regulation. That was epitomised by an exchange I had with Callum McCarthy, the Director General of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 25 January. Responding to concerns that price controls imposed by the regulator were forcing companies to cut back on staff, he said that he believed price controls to be
  "an incentive for efficiency, particularly for less efficient companies."
  However, he refused to accept my suggestion that his own costs might be capped, that increases in his running costs should be limited to an inflation-level increase, and that he should be subject to the same price controls that he is seeking to impose on those whom he regulates. Of course, he is in a supreme monopoly position.
  At present, Mr. McCarthy's running costs are about £36 million, although he said that in the current year his total costs will be nearer £70 million. That is an extremely large sum. It might have been thought that to amalgamate two regulatory bodies would save on costs, but the irony is that in this instance it seems that costs will increase. The regulator has decided that the two regulatory bodies should be consolidated in expensive office accommodation in the centre of London, in Victoria, and that the Birmingham office should be closed. About 100 people working in that office will be made redundant or will have to be redeployed. The centralising is taking place in a part of central London where the costs of office space and general employment are the highest in the country and among the highest in the western world.
  That is indicative of the power and luxury in which some of our super-regulators think that they will be able to bask at the expense of those whom they regulate. It is monstrous that there is no provision in the Bill to enable Parliament or anybody else to have any control over the costs of regulators.
  It is significant that the European Union licensing directive restricts the range of activities that can be funded from a telecom operator's licence fees. It is said in the financial memorandum that the new telecommunications consumer council may have to be funded from public funds, to an extent, because of the EU licensing directive. However, that directive does not apply to the other regulators that are the subject of the Bill. There will be no protection against costs increasing substantially and then becoming a burden on those who are being regulated.
  Paragraph 173 of the explanatory notes refers to the financial effects of the Bill. The Government say that although there will be substantial increases in public expenditure as a result of the Bill, there will not generally be an increase in
  "public borrowing because, in most cases, the costs will be recovered in full from licence fees. These fees are treated as negative public expenditure for control purposes. There will, therefore, be no increase in the Government's preferred measure of public expenditure".
  This is referred to as "Total Managed Expenditure". The notes go on to state:
  "Full cost recovery may not be possible in respect of the telecommunications consumer council"
  because of the EC telecoms licensing directive.
  Effectively, the Government are imposing on a non-independent regulator burdens that will lead to substantial costs. He will be obliged to pass on those costs

  861
  to the companies that he regulates, and the costs will eventually be passed on to the consumer. That is back-door taxation in anyone's language. It is a clever and subtle way of proceeding, but we should expose it to public scrutiny to a greater extent than it has been exposed up to now.
  Ofgem has running costs of no less than £36 million a year, and they are increasing significantly above the rate of inflation. That was implicit in what the director general told the Select Committee the other day. By comparison, the costs of Ofwat are still only £11 million a year. One might think that the latter body had been much more prudently operated during its 10-year history. The costs of Ofwat represent only about 40p for every connected property.
  Another aspect of the Bill that I find offensive is the way in which it introduces the concept of stealth subsidies. The Government say that subsidies distort competition. That is what the Secretary of State has said, and I am sure that most hon. Members would agree, though perhaps not the hon. Member for Nottingham, South. The Bill introduces cross-subsidies, which will be imposed by Ministers through the regulator but will be disguised from the consumer.
  Such stealth subsidies will distort competition even more than transparent subsidies. The Bill effectively introduces social engineering without the scope for democratic consultation, and extra forms of non-parliamentary taxation.
  We need regulation only when competition is not working. David Edmonds, the Director General of Oftel, must be right in his strategy of allowing regulation gradually to be removed as competition advances. The strategic statement from Oftel concludes:
  "Over-regulation distorts markets and disadvantages consumers … Oftel will no longer promote competition in competitive markets but will continue to act to prevent anti-competitive practices."
  I was disappointed to hear from the Secretary of State in his opening remarks today that he did not think that there were areas subject to regulation by Oftel that should be subject to competition in the marketplace. I hope that he will reconsider that opinion, in the light of the remarks of the Director General of Oftel.
  Mr. O'Neill: The legislation will still make provision for groups apart from the poor and the disadvantaged, such as the elderly and the disabled. Those two groups surely require special protection in the telecommunications market. Their dependence on telephones does not always reflect the operation of the market. The regulator should ensure the maintenance of minimum standards and the availability of a service to such groups, whom it is the regulator's specific responsibility to look after.
  Mr. Chope: Much depends on the way in which that is done. At present, the water regulator has responsibilities to pay attention to those who suffer from disabilities or are otherwise disadvantaged, but even the Director General of Ofwat thinks that what is proposed in the Bill is over the top in imposing rigid new requirements on the regulator. I was going to refer later to the exact words that
  862
  he used in a recent article. The general proposition is fine. We should ensure that responsible providers of utilities take into account the needs of special groups. However, the Bill is over the top because it imposes on the regulators substantial requirements which can be met only at tremendous expense to other consumers.
  What protection exists if the Minister or the Secretary of State acts against consumers' interests? The Secretary of State admitted that there was none, and effectively said that we would have to rely on his political judgment. That is a cause of deep anxiety because the most topical example of his judgment is his imposition of restrictions on new entrants into the electricity market. He has forbidden licences to those who provide gas-fired generation. He justified such anti-competitive intervention on the specious ground of security of supply. He repeated that today. I say that the reason is specious not because of my prejudice, which knows few bounds, against the Secretary of State but because his Department's advisers have criticised it. The current energy report shows that they have rejected the reason as unsustainable. The Director General of Ofgem also told the Select Committee that it has no substance. It shows that the Secretary of State is more interested in trying to prop up the coal industry as part of a muddled energy and climate change policy. That policy has led the Government to decide to restrict the ability of new entrants to compete for electricity generation.
  A headline in last week's Utility Week magazine was "DTI advisers said gas ban was unjustified". The accompanying article stated:
  "Independent advisers to the Department of Trade and Industry told Ministers in an unpublished report"—
  that is the story of this Parliament—
  "that the government's current block on new gas-fired generation was unwarranted and unjustified on either security or diversity grounds."
  The Secretary of State responds by telling us to trust him. He takes enormous powers to control the regulators, supposedly in consumers' interests, but if the regulators and other independent experts tell him that he is acting against consumers' interests, he claims that they are wrong and refuses to take any notice of them. That is intolerable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) challenged the Secretary of State about Ian Byatt's comments on the reform of utility regulation. Ian Byatt has completed a successful period of 10 years as the water regulator. In a lecture entitled "Checks, Balances and Competing Pressures—Looking Forward at the Role of the Regulator" to mark the 10th anniversary of Ofwat in October last year, Ian Byatt made pertinent points about the legitimate role of the regulator and the proposed reform of utility regulation. I shall not quote extensively from the lecture, but I commend it to hon. Members who are interested in an informed view, based on 10 years' experience, from an acknowledged world expert on regulation, who has fallen out with the Government in a big way over recent months because of the changes that they propose to the regulatory regime.
  The Secretary of State said, rather disingenuously, that Ian Byatt was the only regulator who had complained. Perhaps that is not unrelated to the fact that Mr. Byatt is giving up his role this summer, and is no longer beholden to the Secretary of State, whereas the other regulators

  863
  depend for their future livelihoods on keeping in with the Secretary of State. That is another comment on the total lack of independence that the regulatory regime possesses.
  In his lecture, Mr. Byatt said, among other things:
  "Ministers recognise the need for proper accountability. They wish to issue statutory guidance on social and environmental matters to which regulators would pay regard. Where, however, social or environmental measures have significant financial implications for consumers or for the regulated companies they recognise that they should be implemented through new, specific legal provision rather than through guidance."
  Although almost exactly the same words appear on page 5 of the Green Paper "A Fair Deal for Consumers" under the heading "The Social and Environmental Framework", the Bill is totally different. Unlike the Green Paper, it does not say that the Government will
  "implement social and environmental measures which have significant financial implications for consumers or for regulated companies"
  other than by regulations made under it rather than through primary legislation, which is what they promised originally.
  Other hon. Members want to participate in the debate, so I shall conclude. I hope it is clear to the House that the fact that I and most Conservative Members think that the Bill is good to a small extent is totally outweighed by many horrendous provisions that will do enormous damage to British industry.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I am pleased to welcome the Bill and, in particular, the lengthy consultation that took place during its formulation. That is extremely important because there is a well established consensus on these issues in which all concerned with them—consumer and environmental groups, the industry and many of the regulators—seem to share, apart, that is, from the Conservative party.
  Interestingly, the Opposition defined the debate as an ideological struggle between privatisation and nationalisation and do not realise that things have moved on. It is almost as if the events of the past 10 years had not taken place and they have forgotten that the weaknesses of their regulatory regime for the privatised utilities were a reason for their dramatic loss of support and confidence over the past few years. The specific issues of directors' salaries, allegations about fat cats and people abusing the privatised utilities for their own ends lost them significant support in all parts of the country; and the idea that a completely deregulated market, which was called for by virtually every Conservative speaker, can do anything to deal with the challenges of climate change or the chronic problem of fuel poverty is absurd. The overwhelming majority of my constituents understand that, which is why the new regulatory regime will be widely welcomed by them and by the general public.
  I want to be brief as time is short, but I must associate myself particularly with the concern of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), which was that the new powers in the Bill be used to advance Government policy on sustainable development. The Bill must be considered in the context of an energy policy and the document on Government policy on renewables, which I understand will be published shortly. I urge
  864
  Ministers to use their powers to ensure that we at last eliminate fuel poverty from the United Kingdom and enable the regulator to use his powers to make sure that the challenge of climate change is not ducked.
  I consider the issue at the heart of the Bill to be the definition of the interests of consumers. The problem is that there are many different kinds of consumers of public utilities; however, I shall talk specifically about the consumption of energy. I feel that the focus must be not simply on achieving a cut in wholesale prices—we are told that there will be a 10 per cent. cut—but first and foremost on ensuring that the charging regime is adjusted. What matters to those who are using gas and electricity, as well as water and telecommunications, is not the wholesale price but the bill that they must pay.
  One of the most glaring weaknesses of the regulatory regime established by the last Government was the fact that poor people paid more per unit cost for their gas and electricity. That is why I welcome the initiatives that have already been announced by various energy suppliers. I understand that PowerGen has announced a new arrangement in conjunction with Age Concern, and that British Gas has announced that it will abolish its standing charges. I think that, at long last, the energy suppliers are realising that they must change their tariff structure to help people on low incomes.
  I also feel that the interest of the consumer must be defined in terms of short-term and long-term interest. That brings me to the environmental point. We would automatically assume the interest of consumers to involve ever-falling energy prices. The difficulty is that, if energy prices and energy bills fall indefinitely, both individuals and companies will once again become profligate in their use of energy. The Government must get to grips with the need for energy conservation and energy efficiency.
  We need a definition of the consumer interest that stresses both the environmental impact and the need for a huge increase in investment in renewables and energy efficiency. If we concentrate simply on trying to cut energy bills year on year without having regard to energy supplies—without considering the availability of fossil fuels such as gas, coal and oil, which have a limited lifespan—we shall find in the first instance that our carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise and we shall not be able to meet our Kyoto targets; and in the longer term that the availability of the raw materials for electricity, in particular, will no longer be there. I welcome the potential that the Bill provides for an increase in our investment in renewables, and in energy efficiency.
  Let me ask some specific questions. First, can my right hon. Friend assure us that the new electricity trading arrangements will not prejudice renewables? I know that there is concern about the fact that it is more difficult for smaller energy suppliers, especially those involved in renewables, to predict the long-term volume of supply. It is an essential part of the new electricity trading arrangements that such predictions be made.
  Secondly, can my right hon. Friend tell us something about the Government's view on net metering? In years to come, when new energy arrangements apply, when there are more and more small-scale producers and when more and more people generate their own electricity sources, I think there will be a proliferation of small suppliers who not only wish to service their own needs—

  865
  domestically or in their own companies—but wish to feed energy back into the national grid. That new form of energy supply will be possible only with a system of net metering, enabling them to be paid properly for the electricity that they feed back into the grid. Is it likely that such a system could be introduced in due course?
  My first question, raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), concerns the argument in favour of environmental reporting. Companies, especially energy companies, are increasingly producing environmental reports, which from time to time appear in the company accounts. My hon. Friend suggested that the new consumer councils should also be required to produce such reports. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that. It would seem a positive development.
  I welcome the Bill. I think that it reflects a consensus in the country; it certainly reflects a consensus among my constituents. It deals with many of the criticisms of the previous lax regime. I am amazed that the Conservative party continues to argue against the measure in such an ideological way. I know that many amendments will be tabled in Committee and that many improvements can be made to the Bill, but its principles are sound. I am happy to support it.
  9.25 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: The Bill is the product of the contradiction and deceit that lie at the heart of new Labour. Since the election and before, the spin and presentation from new Labour have been that Labour has learned the lessons of the 1980s, that it acknowledges the success of privatisation, and that business and the free market are good for the economy. It may not be the spin and presentation that have emanated from some Labour Members in the debate, but that is the spin and presentation that emanate from Millbank towers.
  The reality that is evident in the Bill and elsewhere, and that has been particularly evident in the debate, is that Labour dislikes, distrusts and does not understand the workings of business and the free market. Labour opposed every privatisation of the 1980s and 1990s. No Labour Member was more vociferous than the Prime Minister when he was shadow Secretary of State for Energy at the time of the privatisation of electricity in 1988. In the Second Reading debate on the Electricity Bill, he made three predictions about the effect that privatisation would have, which he no doubt thought were far-sighted, but which have been proved wholly wrong. His first prediction was:
  "outside of the Conservative party … it is barely in issue that prices will rise because of privatisation."
  Since privatisation, electricity prices have fallen by 29 per cent. in real terms. Gas prices have fallen by 29 per cent. in real terms. Telephone charges have fallen by 50 per cent. in real terms. Therefore, let us be clear. If the Labour party had had its way, we would not have had the falls in electricity, gas and telephone charges since those companies were privatised.
  The second prediction was even more wrong:
  "I would have thought that it was … virtually impossible that anyone would build a power station and invest hundreds of millions of pounds, unless they received a guarantee covering the
  866
  capital cost, the fuel cost and, probably … the operating costs, too … the idea that we will have an influx of power stations, all competing on the grid, is nonsense."
  He was wrong again. There has been an influx of new power stations, all competing on the grid: 27 new power stations, producing 18,500 MW of electricity. Fifty independent power producers have entered the generation market since privatisation, with a total market share of some 21 per cent. It would have been difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to get it more wrong. It would be something that we could laugh at—but for the fact that the man who got it wrong is now the Prime Minister.
  It gets worse. In 1988, the Prime Minister said:
  "We are proud that we took the"—
  electricity—
  "industry into public ownership. When we come to power it will be reinstated as a public service for the people of this country, and will not be run for private profit."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 681–84.]
  That might look like yet another broken promise by the Prime Minister, but the Bill actually goes some way to achieving some of his objectives of reintroducing state controls. It contains huge swathes of new regulatory burdens, increased powers for the Secretary of State to intervene in the minutiae of the functioning of all four major utility sectors, and huge new powers to impose limitless fines. It adds enormous compliance burdens on utility companies, the huge cost of which will ultimately be passed on to the consumer.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) said in an excellent article in The Daily Telegraph, the Utilities Bill and the Financial Services and Markets Bill
  "will establish an entirely new form of government, the like of which this country has not experienced before: rule by regulator."
  He made that point again in today's debate.
  The Bill reveals the truth that new Labour has not really understood how competition works, or how it delivers better quality and lower prices. The Government have not really understood the free market. Although they have learned to use the language of business and the private sector, the reality of their policy is intervention and regulation. The Government say one thing, but they do quite another.
  Today's debate has revealed how many Labour Members do not even use the language. I suspect that they will not be welcomed in Millbank towers as part of the new Labour media machine.
  The Conservative approach to the utility sector is to promote competition wherever possible, which itself provides downward pressure on prices. Where competition has not yet been introduced—or where it is not possible to introduce it, because a particular element is a natural monopoly, for example—a regulator is put in place to mimic competition and to protect the consumer.
  The Bill reveals the fact that the Government believe that the consumer is always better protected by regulations and that regulation is beneficial for its own sake, even when a utility is fully exposed to a fiercely competitive market. It demonstrates that, like the Prime Minister, new Labour has still not learned how powerful the marketplace is in delivering for the consumer.
  The danger of the approach taken in the Bill is that all those new burdens and costs will stifle competition, and so disadvantage the consumer; that more powers for the

  867
  Secretary of State will add to the regulatory risk and increase the costs of capital; and that the combination of all those increased costs and burdens will lead to higher, not lower, charges for consumers.
  The Conservative approach—which has led to huge price reductions, better services and a whole range of new opportunities and choices for consumers—has also resulted, as hon. Members have mentioned today, in a massive decrease in the number of disconnections: in electricity, from 80,000 a year before privatisation to only 373 last year.
  The essence of the Government's misunderstanding of the importance of competition can be discerned in the Bill, which reorders the priorities of the regulator and demotes the promotion of competition to a second order objective.
  The Bill has been severely criticised by industry, and particularly by Ian Byatt, the current water regulator. Last week, in a lecture at the Royal Aeronautical Society, he said:
  "Now we have a Bill which shows how difficult Governments can find it to translate good intentions into sensible legislation. I find the Bill over-complicated because it is over-prescriptive. Nothing is left to good sense."
  Mr. Byatt went on to conclude that
  "the Regulator will be festooned with detailed requirements…All laudable, all already being carried out, all, however, because of detailed over-prescription, likely to raise the costs but not the effectiveness of regulations."
  The point was well summarised by Roger Barnard, of London Electricity, who said:
  "This Bill's enlargement of the scope for discretionary intervention by regulators, politicians and advocates is likely to extract a high price from utility industries, and all consumers will pay it."
  This has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, mentioned the translation of minor savings and efficiencies in the early years into significantly higher profits for the companies. However, he fails to understand that, at the time, all the experts underestimated quite how inefficient those companies were when they were in the state sector.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to complain about the electricity pool and so-called rigged prices. However, whatever its faults—it will be a subject of debate in Committee—we should remember that it was put in place when there were very few operating companies in the market. It was certainly better than having prices fixed by the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), speaking for the Liberal Democrats, expressed concerns that the Government have to be sure that the Bill will not move the pendulum too far in the direction of over-regulation. He quite rightly pointed out the danger that such action would increase the cost of capital. He also said, as Conservative Members have, that such action would inevitably result in higher costs being passed on to consumers.
  The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) accepted that the number of disconnections had decreased, but said that the number of complaints had increased. Does he not accept that, when those industries were in the state sector, no one would bother to complain, because one would be lucky if the telephone was even answered when one was trying to register the complaint? The whole ethos has changed since privatisation.
  868
  The hon. Member for Hove referred also to Seeboard, which supplies electricity in his area and part of mine. The company supplies Littlehampton, but not, alas, Bognor Regis—although the company has given a generous grant towards the sea front lights at Bognor, for which the community is grateful. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that Seeboard has abolished the standing charge. Does he believe that that would have occurred had the industry remained within the state sector? I am sure that it would not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) was right to point out that when the utilities were in the state sector, they provided a poor service—one could wait two years to have a telephone installed. It was nonsensical. He made important points about the new electricity trading arrangements, particularly regarding the fact that it is not real-time trading. We will refer to this in Committee.
  Mr. Fabricant: With regard to people being attacked in the street, does my hon. Friend recall the worrying statistic that, in the last year of nationalisation, only a third of telephone boxes were working at any one time, whereas within two years of privatisation, more than 95 per cent. of public call boxes were operating?
  Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which shows the efficacy of the private sector.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West also pointed out the complexity of the new electricity trading arrangements, and we all look forward to tomorrow's briefing on the new arrangements which the Minister has kindly arranged. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Bill contains wide powers for the Secretary of State that will impose new regulatory burdens, the extent of which we do not know, as the regulations have yet to be published. He made the valid point that a Bill designed ostensibly to help the consumer could well result in higher electricity charges because of the huge regulatory burden.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire—the former Minister directly responsible for falls of 29 per cent. in real terms in our electricity bills—made the important point that the regulator giving way to competition is the best way to help the consumer. Under the Bill, competition is no longer the primary objective. The Government have set up a whole raft of regulatory objectives, many of which are wholly antipathetic to the promotion of competition. My hon. Friend referred also to the important concerns regarding the NETA arrangements, and challenged the swagger with which the Secretary of State said that the arrangements will certainly result in a 10 per cent. fall in electricity prices.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) rightly pointed out the absence of intellectual honesty by the Government in admitting the enormous lack of investment in water and sewerage infrastructure during the decades of state control.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove said that we need a strong regulatory framework to counter the power of the market. He said that he wanted joined-up thinking and all-party consensus—well done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), in an interesting speech, said that it is almost as if the Government had forgotten that the utilities

  869
  had been privatised. He rightly pointed out that increased costs to companies will mean increased costs to consumers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), in an important speech, pointed to the huge increases in Scottish water charges from the state-controlled Scottish water industry that will ensue over the next few years. He also raised the important concern that the independence of the regulators will be compromised because of the power vested in the Secretary of State to lavish enormous largesse on the regulators in terms of expenses and pay-outs.
  There are one or two things in the Bill that we support. We welcome, in principle, the reform of the electricity pool. There are now far more players in the market than at the time of privatisation, so now is the time to introduce a properly functioning exchange. We will, however, be looking at the details to make sure that it is a properly functioning exchange. We agree that the supply and distribution of electricity need to be separately licensed, enabling the natural monopoly area to be confined to the smallest component. We welcome the merger of electricity and gas regulators, which reflects the fact that most suppliers provide both gas and electricity. It follows, therefore, that the consumer councils should be merged also.
  It is interesting to note that the positions on the new council are to be well remunerated. We now have the slightly unedifying sight of candidates for such jobs outbidding each other in sycophantic praise for the Government's proposals. The payroll vote is being expanded beyond the confines of the House to a whole host of what were once independent third party opinion former—like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) before she became a Back-Bench Government supporter.
  The Bill will impose enormous regulatory burdens and costs on the companies operating in the four utilities sectors. It will add to uncertainty and increase regulatory risk. The Government will claim that it will do the opposite, but this is another example of their saying one thing and doing another.
  The Bill contains some important reforms, but the Government have allowed their deeply held prejudice and lack of understanding of industry to damage not only the Bill but the very industries and their consumers that they are seeking to protect. The Bill is bureaucratic, over-regulatory and costly, and I urge the House to support the reasoned amendment to it.
  9.40 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): We have heard a lot of interesting speeches, not least the one from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). I always get the impression that he is still in a state of shock that the electorate could have been so lacking in majesty as to elect a Labour Government. He seems to have a sense that there was a golden age when the peasants knew their place and the bosses lined their pockets.
  It is bizarre that the official Opposition should oppose the Bill. They have learned nothing from experience and seem to have failed to have taken on board the public
  870
  revulsion at the fat-cat payouts under the previous Administration. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) made several points that recognised how much sense there is in the Bill. It is regrettable that dogma then took over and the official Opposition did not find it possible to support the Bill in its entirety.
  The Bill is complex and technical in many respects, but its underlying thrust, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear earlier, is to take utilities regulation into a new era of changing markets and higher consumer expectations. It is a fair and balanced Bill, which reflects the wide-ranging consultations that we held. It is about reform and modernisation.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: I want to make some progress, as I want to answer many points made by hon. Members who have been here all evening.
  The Bill makes it clear that we are serious about giving all consumers a better deal, taking account of the Government's wider policy agenda on social reform. It shows that we are committed to pushing ahead vigorously with further and more effective competition in the utilities sector, and that we are determined to modernise the regulatory framework to take account of the nature of modern energy markets.
  There is a great need to ensure the transparency, consistency and predictability of regulation. Good and transparent regulation leads to more effective business.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: No, I want to make some progress. I do not know what part of that the hon. Gentleman does not understand. If there is time later, I shall be mindful of him.
  If I do not manage to cover all the points made in the debate, I shall write to hon. Members. As the Bill has some extremely technical parts, I shall ensure that officials provide a briefing to both Government and Opposition Members so that no one will be disadvantaged as we go through the text in what will no doubt be a very long Committee stage.
  The Bill contains the core of our proposals for legislation, but it is not yet complete. We faced a choice between waiting until all its provisions were ready or introducing a substantial core now and completing the Bill later by way of Government amendments—[Interruption.] It is obvious that Conservative Members would prefer that consumers did not get the advantage of the Bill as quickly as possible. That should surprise no one, given the performance of certain Opposition Members during the debate.
  Sir Michael Spicer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Government to introduce only half a Bill on Second Reading, as the Minister now admits?
  Madam Speaker: The right hon. Lady is responsible for her comments and for laying out Government policy. That is not a point of order.
  Mrs. Liddell: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Given that the hon. Gentleman spent much of the night suggesting

  871
  that we were trying to renationalise the top 400 companies, it is surprising that he has caught on to the nature of the debate so far.
  Several points were raised about renewable energy and I shall refer, in particular, to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. I am conscious that the renewables issue requires greater explanation. I hope shortly—within a few hours—to be able to publish the conclusions of the response to the public consultation on renewables. Several hon. Members raised that issue in the debate and I shall give a thumbnail sketch of the new powers. They will contribute to our broad strategy to target a 10 per cent. share of electricity supply from renewable sources.
  The key elements of the strategy include the new renewables obligation on all suppliers; exemption of renewables electricity and heat from the climate change levy; and an expanded development programme for renewable technology, which takes into account the point that the hon. Lady made about emerging technologies and the importance of ensuring that the new regime for support for renewables is not an opportunity to choose winners, but a genuine opportunity to allow emerging technologies to develop.
  The strategy is good news for all of us. A strong renewables industry will help us to protect our environment. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made much of that point in his speech. We need to consider the use made of energy, as well as the price of energy. We must ensure greater energy efficiency, in relation to our commitments on renewables and on poverty, because we place great importance on ensuring that people have access to the most effective ways of heating their homes.
  Many hon. Members have discussed the new electricity trading arrangements. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who is a recognised expert on the issue, given his previous experience, drew attention to the fact that some academics have maintained that NETA will fail to deliver price reductions. However, there are as many academics who contend that it will deliver price reductions. We have undertaken some market testing of the balancing mechanisms, which leads us to conclude that energy prices will fall. However, another study was done with a test model that concentrated only on the balancing mechanism, and that appears to have led to the conclusion that prices will not fall.
  I should point out that there is more to NETA than just the balancing mechanism. Indeed, the present operation of the market, in anticipation of NETA, is already displaying downward pressure on prices. The electricity pool has not worked. It has allowed gaming on electricity prices. Last July, in relation to the price spikes, it was obvious that the transparency necessary to operate a proper energy market did not exist.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: I wish to make some progress. Many hon. Members have made points in the debate to which they are entitled to have a reply.
  Hon. Members have raised the issue of the effect that NETA will have on combined heat and power and on renewables. We have had lengthy discussions with the
  872
  Combined Heat and Power Association about the impact of NETA and we hope to be able to work with the association to ensure that CHP continues to make an expanding contribution to our energy market.
  The hon. Member for Bournemouth, West suggested that there was a lack in the resources available to the CHPA, but it has not said that to us. The association acknowledges that NETA is complicated and that it will create difficulties, but it has not made the point that the hon. Gentleman made. We shall discuss the matter with the association.
  The stricter gas consents policy was mentioned several times. The Government have always made it clear that that stricter policy is a temporary measure, aimed at getting rid of distortions in electricity trading arrangements. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), who spoke about the coal industry, that one of the distortions in the energy market was against coal. The new electricity trading arrangements will remove that distortion. However, I do not underestimate the difficulties faced by the deep-mined coal industry. The Government are aware of the problem and are studying it.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill)—I have heard some strange pronunciations of that constituency today—for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Hornchurch, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, all highlighted the problem of fuel poverty. In the early days of the 21st century, fuel poverty is completely unacceptable. That is why the social aspects of the Bill, and the reserve power that we are taking, are very important.
  However, there is another way to tackle fuel poverty. The regulator is taking forward a social action plan that we hope will make the use of cross-subsidy unnecessary. I expect the industry to co-operate fully with the plan, and I have asked those at the highest level in each company to take into account issues of fuel poverty. For example, the extent to which the Electricity Association's task force on fuel poverty comes up with realisable plans to ease fuel poverty will be an important guide to the industry's commitment to resolving the problem.
  Economic regulation does not take place in a vacuum. Environmental, as well as social, responsibilities must also be taken into account. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton asked for more detail on the statutory social and environmental guidance. I accept her point that more detail is required, and the Government intend to publish copies of draft statutory social and environmental guidance for energy and for telecoms. That guidance will allow consultation to be held with all the interested parties.
  The drafts will be preliminary versions, so that all involved can contribute to ensuring that the guidelines meet the needs of Government and of industry. That common-sense way forward will ensure that the regulator has the opportunity to take into account the Government's overall policies.
  Mr. Gibb: Will those drafts be available before consideration of the Bill in Committee begins?
  Mrs. Liddell: I do not know when proceedings will begin in Committee, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government intend that the draft guidance will be made available as soon as possible.

  873
  The issue of standing charges is, I know, very close to the hearts of many Labour Members. Our constituents are often deeply concerned that people, especially the poor, have to pay standing charges. We have long believed that such charges are unfair and that they have a particular impact on low-use and less well-off customers. However, the answer to the problem can be found in competition in energy markets. We are already seeing some progress. Norweb and British Fuels Ltd. offer packages without a standing charge, and Centrica recently announced that it was abolishing standing charges.
  The Government foresee an important role for the new consumer councils in ensuring that information on tariffs is available to every customer, including poorer customers. A number of Labour members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil, pointed out the difficulty that disadvantaged people face in accessing the cheapest tariffs for electricity. It is very important, therefore, that we concentrate on getting information across to people.
  I should like briefly to refer to some of the issues on telecoms regulation. I know that British Telecom has been briefing hon. Members on their concerns about over-regulation. The Bill introduces better regulation measures such as depersonalisation. We have heard a lot tonight about one regulator by name. We do not believe that that is the way to give the regulatory certainty that is required by companies in planning ahead. It is important to have regulatory certainty, which is why the Bill makes these significant changes.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked about concurrency and related that to overlapping regulation. We believe that concurrency will help to avoid overlapping regulation. Utility regulators will have powers under the Competition Act 1998. That will help eliminate the overlap with the Office of Fair Trading. Indeed, the consumer councils will have no decision-making powers. They will investigate, report and make representations, so I do not think that the overlapping that the hon. Gentleman mentioned needs to be especially considered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch asked about consumer councils as advocates. That is their key role—to be advocates, to be partisan on behalf of consumers. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) referred to access to information. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, it is very important to have a balance regarding freedom of information to ensure that the information in the public domain is not anti-competitive and does not lead to an increased burden. It is important to consider balance. That can be discussed in more detail in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who has let me know that he cannot be present because of a family illness, asked about financial penalties. We believe that there is a place for financial penalties. They are available in the gas market and we believe that there is a place for them in the electricity market, but they must be proportionate. The hon. Gentleman also asked who would regulate the futures market on the new electricity trading arrangements. That will be regulated by the Financial Services Authority in the same way that any financial options market would be regulated.
  Mr. Butterfill: I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. She has not dealt with what I consider to
  874
  be the most important point—the security of supply in the electricity supply industry. What is the Government's policy in that connection?
  Mrs. Liddell: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Bill, he will see that the regulator has responsibility to take into account the Government's commitment to, and responsibilities for, security of supply. I believe that our actions will ensure that security of supply will be preserved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) asked about the health and safety responsibilities of the energy industry. The regulator is an economic regulator; health and safety matters are the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive. However, the regulator must ensure that the industry has sufficient finances to take health and safety matters into account.
  There have also been questions about why the water industry is treated differently. I think that both sides of the House recognise that the water industry is significantly different. We have taken into account the wide range of different aspects of regulation that affect utilities.
  When in opposition, we undertook to achieve open and predictable regulation that is fair to both customers and shareholders. The Bill delivers on that promise. It will improve the transparency, consistency and predictability of regulation, and will provide a stable framework. It is a good move forward for the people of this country. It is about reform, modernisation and common sense, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 343.

  Division No. 55]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Faber, David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fabricant, Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Flight, Howard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Baldry, Tony

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bencow, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fraser, Christopher

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gale, Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  Gibb, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brady, Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gray, James

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Green, Damian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Greenway, John

  Burns, Simon

  Grieve, Dominic

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Cash, William

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Hammond, Philip

  Chope, Christopher

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hayes, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Horam, John

  Collins, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cran, James

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Day, Stephen

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Duncan, Alan

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  875

  Lansley, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Leigh, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Letwin, Oliver

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Loughton, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Luff, Peter

  Steen, Anthony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Streeter, Gary

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Syms, Robert

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Madel, Sir David

  Townend, John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Trend, Michael

  Maples, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Viggers, Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Walter, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles

  Norman, Archie

  Waterson, Nigel

  Page, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Paice, James

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Paterson, Owen

  Whittingdale, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Wilkinson, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Willetts, David

  Prior, David

  Wilshire, David

  Randall, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Laurence

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ruffley, David

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Ashton, Joe

  Cann, Jamie

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caplin, Ivor

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caton, Martin

  Austin, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Baker, Norman

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barron, Kevin

  Clapham, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Berry, Roger

  Clelland, David

  Best, Harold

  Clwyd, Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cohen, Harry

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Coleman, Iain

  Borrow, David

  Colman, Tony

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Connarty, Michael

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Corbett, Robin

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Burden, Richard

  Corston, Jean

  Burgon, Colin

  Cotter, Brian

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Cousins, Jim

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Cox, Tom

  876

  Crausby, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hutton, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Illsley, Eric

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jamieson, David

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Doran, Frank

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Edwards, Huw

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Etherington, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kidney, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Flint, Caroline

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flynn, Paul

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foulkes, George

  Levitt, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Linton, Martin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Livsey, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Love, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCabe, Steve

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Graham, Thomas

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McFall, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grogan, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gunnell, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McWalter, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Healey, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Martlew, Eric

  Heppell, John

  Maxton, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Meale, Alan

  Hinchliffe, David

  Merron, Gillian

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hoey, Kate

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Home Robertson, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hope, Phil

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  877

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mountford, Kali

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Soley, Clive

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Norris, Dan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Olner, Bill

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Neill, Martin

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stringer, Graham

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stunell, Andrew

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pendry, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Pond, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pope, Greg

  Timms, Stephen

  Pound, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Rammell, Bill

  Tyler, Paul

  Rapson, Syd

  Tynan, Bill

  Raynsford, Nick

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rendel, David

  Wareing, Robert N

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Watts, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  White, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rowlands, Ted (Swansea W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Roy, Frank

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Willis, Phil

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Winnick, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wise, Audrey

  Salter, Martin

  Wood, Mike

  Sanders, Adrian

  Woolas, Phil

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Worthington, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  Wray, James

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Singh, Marsha

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  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, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the very grave news emanating from Northern Ireland tonight, would you do your very best to ensure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland comes to the House tomorrow to make a statement on the events subsequent to the de Chastelain report?
  Madam Speaker: I am sure that the Ministers on the Treasury Bench who have some responsibility for Government matters will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order.

  UTILITIES BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Utilities Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (1) any expenditure incurred by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority or the Telecommunications Authority by virtue of the Act;

  (2) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act;

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

  Question agreed to.

  UTILITIES BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Utilities Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the inclusion in—

  (a) licences granted under the Telecommunications Act 1984, the Gas Act 1986 or the Electricity Act 1989; and

  (b) appointments made under Chapter I of Part II of the Water Industry Act 1991;

  of conditions requiring the payment of increased amounts payable into the Consolidated Fund; and

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

  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FUNDS) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT No. 2) REGULATIONS
    That the Local Authorities (Funds) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1999 be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation. —[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

  CATERING
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Paul Keetch be discharged from the Catering Committee and Bob Russell be added to the Committee. — [Mr. Tyler.]

  Waste Disposal (East Sussex)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
  10.15 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: I want to raise a matter of considerable importance to my constituents and those of other Members in East Sussex, namely the present state of the East Sussex-Brighton and Hove draft waste disposal plan, and perhaps more importantly for the purpose of the debate, the Government's strategy, which has led the councils to their present position.
  This country throws away 105 million tonnes of waste each year: 70 million tonnes from industry, 20 million tonnes from households and 15 million tonnes from offices. The situation is getting worse year by year. In 1994, the UK packaging industry predicted that packaging waste would increase by 10 per cent. by 2000. That is contrary to what is happening in the Netherlands, which planned a decrease of 10 per cent. between 1986 and 2000. Does the Minister know what has happened concerning the prediction by the UK packaging industry?
  The amount of waste arising each year is still increasing by 3 per cent., certainly in East Sussex. That puts tremendous strain on the Government's strategy and on the waste disposal authorities that have to deal with waste at the rough end.
  The Government are facing a pincer movement. On the one hand, an EU directive requires a maximum of 35 per cent. of household waste to be landfilled by 2016. The present figure is 80 to 85 per cent. Does that figure apply only to biodegradable waste collected by local authorities? I ask because the directive says that
  "waste from households plus other waste which because of its natures or composition is similar to waste from households"
  is included in that figure. That makes a difference, and it is important to quantify what percentage of waste is equivalent to that produced by households and whether the Government are including that in the figure of 35 per cent. That half of the pincer movement rightly requires a substantial decrease in the amount of waste that is landfilled.
  The second half of the pincer movement—which is a beneficial manoeuvre—is the Government's recycling target. I understand that the target is to recycle 25 per cent. of waste by 2005, so it does not take a mathematician to work out that there is a large gap. The only realistic way to fill that gap in the short term is to incinerate waste. Are the Government actively choosing incineration, or have they been left with that option because there is no alternative way to deal with waste?
  Mr. Phil Willis: Does my hon. Friend agree that his point about the landfill of domestic waste is crucial, particularly for authorities such as North Yorkshire county council, which has a major problem with its Harewood Whin site? That site, which is just outside York, is coming to completion, but the council has applied for a major extension to take in another 15 to 20 acres of greenfield land on which to dump rubbish. Without a clear statement of policy from the Government, it will be difficult to do that.
  Mr. Baker: I share my hon. Friend's concern, and I am sure that the Minister will address the question of landfill in his reply.
  880
  Landfills in the Sussex area are described as "restoration of chalk downland", which is a euphemism that I shall not employ. The landfill site that is about a mile from my house—I am declaring a sort of interest—is responsible for a substantial amount of groundwater pollution, as recognised by the Environment Agency. I understand that landfills nationwide are responsible for a third of all groundwater pollution. They produce methane in large quantities, which is a bad greenhouse gas. Every day in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, 700 tonnes of rubbish is landfilled, and that quantity is increasing by 3 per cent. a year. Clearly that needs to be dealt with.
  When the Minister responds, will he explain the Government's position on incineration, which is euphemistically called energy from waste? The term "incineration" is not liked now and there is a preference to call it something else.
  Do the Government accept that incineration is inevitable? If so, are they happy that that is the position? At present, there are only a handful of incinerators throughout the country, and the projections that I have seen suggest that there will be 130 or more in the coming years. Yet it is accepted, as it is by Ministers, that there is a problem in public perception terms at least with the possible health implications of incinerators. They emit dioxin and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury. Standards have been tightened recently but, for example, the standards in the Netherlands are 10 times higher than the new ones that have been introduced in the UK. Incineration plants still produce toxic ash—particularly fly ash and bottom ash—that has to go to a landfill site.
  Is the Minister happy that incineration plants can be operated safely, and are the present standards ones that he is happy to accept? Can he give an assurance to communities that will be faced with incineration plants, whether in East Sussex or elsewhere, that he is confident that there are no health implications? Do the Government have a guideline distance for the siting of an incinerator from nearby domestic properties? Is a certain distance employed, or is it safe in the Government's view to have an incinerator next to someone's house? That is a genuine question. I do not know what the Government's view is on the safety of incinerators in those terms.
  Incinerators can add to global warming, and in comparison with recycling materials, there is a considerable deficit in terms of the Government's attempts to meet the Kyoto targets. According to Friends of the Earth, recycling would save 4.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year when compared with energy-from-waste plants. Friends of the Earth tells me that that is equivalent to 12 per cent. of all vehicle mileage in the United Kingdom, even allowing for displacement. That is energy that need not necessarily be created as a consequence.
  Another problem with incineration that concerns me is that the contracts that local authorities have to enter into are often for 25 to 30 years. In other words, they have to guarantee a waste-stream for the incinerators. If there is a shortfall because recycling efforts have been too successful, compensation payments must be made. For example, the contract signed by Cleveland county council before it was abolished in 1995, guaranteed 180,000 tonnes of waste per year for the incinerator. There was a shortfall the first year of 12,000 tonnes, and the county council was penalised to the tune of £147,000.

  881
  In other words, because it recycled too much it had to pay a fine. Incineration capacity necessarily acts as a break on recycling and re-use efforts that are made by local authorities, which is of great concern. The assistant director of environmental services at Stockton borough council said:
  "Essentially we are into waste maximisation."
  My second concern about incineration is the high capital cost. Pollution abatement equipment tends to make small incinerators unprofitable. That suggests that a huge amount of waste is needed to make them pay.
  Thirdly, can incinerators be built quickly enough within the planning process? As the Minister will know, there is considerable opposition to incineration plants anywhere. There will be big fights locally, whether in East Sussex or elsewhere, in opposition to any incineration plant. It seems inconceivable that the Government's gap, which they want to fill with incineration, as I understand it, can be met within the planning process.
  In my view, incineration is at best a bridge to a solution and not a solution in itself. I shall be happier tonight if the Minister tells me that he is not too comfortable with incineration and sees it only as a short-term step on the way to recycling and re-use, and waste minimisation as a long-term concept.
  I suggest that the Government should set incineration capacity for each area at a maximum percentage of the present waste generated there. They should not allow incineration capacity to grow indefinitely and stifle recycling efforts. The Government should say, "This is as much as you can have. Any extra waste will have to be dealt with by recycling." That would offer some protection and some incentive for recycling.
  The excellent Environment Minister, who won a green ribbon award last week, which I am happy to say was fully deserved, in a recent parliamentary answer described recycling rates as "pathetically low". Switzerland recycles 52 per cent. of its waste, the Netherlands 45 per cent., Austria 45 per cent., Norway 34 per cent., Sweden 33 per cent., England 8 per cent. and Scotland 6 per cent. That is very poor.
  The Government must do more to encourage recycling. They should, for example, support the Newspaper and Magazine Recycling Bill, which would require 65 per cent. of papers and magazines collected to be recycled. The Government should find ways of using economic instruments to encourage recycling. The Treasury should cost in externalities and reform gross domestic product.
  The Government should consider a tax on virgin materials, with a compensatory benefit for recycled materials to give incentives to local authorities and others. One possibility is a tax on primary aluminium producers, because of the massive environmental damage that they cause through the extraction of bauxite.
  The Government should take account of the fact that there are no real incentives for waste disposal authorities—only for waste collection authorities—arising from recycling credits. The Government should give further incentives to local councils and issue guidance on simple matters such as the size of dustbins.
  In my constituency there are two waste collection authorities—Lewes district council and Wealden district council. Wealden district council recycles far more per
  882
  head of population, but the amount per head that goes to landfill is the same, because Wealden district council has wheelie bins and Lewes district council has traditional dustbins. The wheelie bins in Wealden get filled up to the top. The size of dustbins should be reduced. That is a simple thing to do, but from the parliamentary answer that I received, the evidence nationally shows that authorities with wheelie bins produce more waste per head of population. It would be simple for the Government to deal with the capacity of dustbins.
  The Government need to reform standard spending assessments. I understand from the director of environment and transport for East Sussex county council that the waste allowance under the "other" bloc allocation is insufficient for East Sussex and every other local authority in the country. He does not know of one that does not spend more than the target set in the SSA.
  There are various measures that the Government could adopt to produce extra incentives.
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks, will he comment on the real issue that is enveloping local people in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove? The officers of both councils agreed a professional report. The councillors in Brighton and Hove approved the report, but the Liberal Democrats in East Sussex chose, for political reasons, to throw it out. Surely that should be the subject of our debate tonight.
  Mr. Baker: It is important for the Government to set their strategy, but I am happy to associate myself with the members of East Sussex county council, both Liberal Democrat and Conservative, who rejected that plan.
  It is important for the Government to get their strategy right nationally. The joint draft plan to which the hon. Gentleman referred included a range of unacceptable proposals, one of which was landraise in my constituency. That is the worst possible option in the waste hierarchy. It involves landraise in the lower Weald at Veals Farm, next to a development of mobile homes at Deanland, where many people have gone to retire—that is the proposal that the hon. Gentleman is presumably supporting in his intervention—and landraise between Firle and Selmeston in my constituency. Will the Minister tonight rule out landraise as an option for any authority?
  The second item was incineration. There was a proposal for an incineration plant at Newhaven, with all the health implications that that might have and the impact on business, which would affect the Newhaven economic partnership, and assisted area status. Businesses in my constituency say that if an incineration plant is built at Newhaven, that will affect the work undertaken by the Government office for the south east and others to boost Newhaven.
  The alternative suggestion was a plant at Beddingham in the area of outstanding natural beauty, where there is a record of groundwater pollution. An incinerator was also proposed—goodness knows how high the chimney would be. There is already a landfill site there that will be filled to capacity in 2004. I hope that the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) is listening. He commented on the waste plan, which suggests that all the disposal facilities should be in East Sussex, while Brighton and Hove—a large

  883
  generator of waste—should take none of the responsibility. However, Government planning policy guidance note 10 states:
  "Waste should generally be managed as near as possible to its place of production, because transporting waste itself has an environmental impact."
  I hope that the Minister will confirm that tonight. If he does, he should acknowledge that the substantial amount of waste from Brighton and Hove should be disposed of there, and not shunted miles into East Sussex. Brighton and Hove—a great place that wants to be a city—should take responsibility for all aspects of its management. It should not simply dump its rubbish over the border in East Sussex.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. The biggest problem that he experiences in East Sussex and that I encounter in West Sussex is a unitary authority that recycles less than 9 per cent. of its waste and looks to our respective counties to take care of its rubbish. When it proposes a site for an incinerator on the doorstep of my constituency, it refuses point blank to consult my constituents. Is not that disgraceful?
  Mr. Baker: I agree. The Government have given private finance initiative credits of £49 million to the local authorities of East Sussex, and of Brighton and Hove for disposing of waste. I do not knock the Government for that. I query their strategy, but I readily acknowledge that they have provided those credits. However, what is the Government's position if East Sussex county council and Brighton and Hove fail to agree on a draft waste plan? Will the money still be available if there is no site-specific plan? Are the Government happy for the money to be used if it is simply left to individual developers to apply for sites?
  I am sorry that we have no more time to debate such an important issue. Clearly, other hon. Members would like to speak. I hope that the Minister accepts that I have raised the matter in all sincerity because it is important for my constituents and others. I should be grateful for a clarification of the Government's strategy and an answer to my questions. We must have a sensible waste strategy in East Sussex; there is currently no such strategy.
  10.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) has raised an important issue, as he rightly says, and asked many questions. There will not be enough time to reply to them all, but I shall do my best.
  The debate is particularly timely, given the recent endorsement of the joint application of East Sussex county council and Brighton and Hove council for private finance initiative credits to support the development of an integrated waste management scheme for the area.
  In June last year, we published the draft national waste strategy "A Way With Waste", which set out Government policy for sustainable waste management for the next 20 years. The hon. Gentleman will find some of the answers to his questions in that document. Consultation on the draft strategy is now over, and the final version will be published later this year.
  884
  In "A Way With Waste", we identified the need for a fundamental change in the way we think about and manage our waste. That will mean curbing the growth in waste generation and learning to recognise waste as a resource. It will also require the adoption of an integrated approach to waste, covering generation, management and disposal. Within that integrated framework, we will need increased recycling, composting, and energy recovery from waste when that represents the best practicable environmental option. Not least, we must also undertake more work to develop stronger markets for recovered materials.
  Our goals for waste are undoubtedly challenging, but we consider that, with the co-operation of all concerned, they are realistic and achievable. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the key goals that we have set. They are: to reduce the amount of industrial and commercial waste sent to landfill to 85 per cent. of 1998 levels by 2005; to meet our existing targets of 40 per cent. of municipal waste to be recovered and 25 per cent. of household waste to be recycled or composted as soon as possible; to recover 45 per cent. of municipal waste by 2010—including recycling or composting 30 per cent. of household waste; and to recover two thirds of our municipal waste by 2015—at least half through recycling and composting.
  A key force behind those goals is the European landfill directive, which will require substantial changes to be made to the way in which we manage our waste. At present, the UK landfills more than 80 per cent. of our biodegradable municipal waste, but the directive will require us to reduce that to 75 per cent. of the 1995 level by 2006, to 50 per cent. by 2009 and to 35 per cent. by 2016, although we have the option to extend those targets by four years. It refers to municipal, not household, waste. The goals of the waste strategy and the statutory targets of the landfill directive apply nationally, but clearly much will need to be done locally if we are to meet them. Local authorities in particular will have a key role to play, given their statutory responsibilities for waste collection, disposal and planning.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the financial burden that recycling and waste minimisation initiatives place on local authorities. We are aware that plans by authorities to invest in integrated waste management solutions will place an extra burden on their finances, and are actively seeking extra funding for local authority waste management as part of the 2000 spending review. He will not expect me to go into details at this stage for fear of upsetting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
  As we made clear in "A Way With Waste", the Government propose first to try to reduce waste generation. If that is not practicable, we should seek to reuse waste. Failing that, we should recover value through recycling, composting or energy recovery. Only if none of those offer an appropriate solution should waste be disposed of by other means, which addresses the hon. Gentleman's point about landraise. Within that framework, we have also emphasised that recycling and composting should be considered before the recovery of energy from waste through incineration.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was inevitable that there should be some incineration. We believe that it is, although not necessarily the amount to which he referred. It is important that we have a rational debate, which we must not use to score cheap points—I am not

  885
  suggesting that he did so—or as an excuse for NIMBYism. This is an important issue and we all have to take responsibility for the huge amounts of waste that we generate, although he will find that even Friends of the Earth acknowledges that some incineration will be necessary.
  However, recycling and composting alone will not deliver the rates of diversion necessary to meet the targets in the landfill directive. Although we must aim for very substantial increases in recycling—indeed, we do aim for them—energy from waste will have an important role to play as part of an integrated, sustainable system of waste management. Countries elsewhere in Europe, some of which the hon. Gentleman cited, already achieve recycling rates far in advance of our own and make widespread use of energy from waste.
  To East Sussex's credit, it actively sought more sustainable waste management options when faced with a lack of local landfill capacity. The fully integrated scheme, which has just been endorsed, should deliver high recycling and composting rates and high overall diversion rates by employing a mix of options, including energy from waste and recycling facilities.
  I fully appreciate that local people may have concerns about the proposed development of energy from waste plant in East Sussex, but emissions from such plants are strictly regulated by the Environment Agency under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and we are confident that current environmental protection standards are sufficient to protect both the environment and public health. We also strongly support the forthcoming European directive on incineration, which will set even tighter emission standards that would apply to any plant developed as part of the East Sussex PFI scheme.
  If fully integrated waste management systems utilising a range of options are to be implemented effectively, there will obviously be a corresponding need to identify sites for the development of the necessary facilities. The key instrument for that identification is the waste local plan, developed in consultation with local communities. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) said that there would be no consultation. There should be consultation: the planning system is there for that purpose.
  Mr. Loughton: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Mullin: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have only a minute or two left.
  In September last year my Department published planning policy guidance note 10, to which the hon. Member for Lewes referred. It is intended to assist planning authorities in the preparation of their waste local plans, and the determination of planning applications for waste management facilities. It also provides specific advice on the criteria for the siting of such facilities.
  886
  I understand that a consultation draft of the East Sussex and Brighton and Hove plan was published in 1998, but that the deposit draft of the plan has been delayed owing to the disagreements mentioned a moment ago. In particular, I believe that disputes have arisen over the sites identified for future facilities, including—perhaps especially—those identified for energy from waste plants.
  As I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for me to prejudice any subsequent intervention by the Secretary of State in the adoption of the plan by discussing the merits or otherwise of prospective sites. That should be a matter for local debate and consultation. The Secretary of State will scrutinise the plans once they have been placed on formal deposit, to ensure that they generally accord with Government policy on planning for waste management.
  I was, however, disappointed to learn that the main obstacle to the plan's adoption appears to be a dispute between the two authorities. In "A Way with Waste", we made clear our belief that the integrated approach to waste management, which is crucial to the meeting of our goals, could succeed only through close collaboration and co-operation between local authorities. That is particularly true in areas with two tiers of local government such as East Sussex, where responsibilities for collections and disposal are split. If we fail to achieve the levels of co-operation needed to meet our goals, we are committed to re-examining the whole structure of local authority waste management responsibilities.
  East Sussex and Brighton and Hove have already shown that they can work together in securing private finance initiative support for their integrated management scheme. I understand that they are also working on a joint municipal waste management strategy, which will set out policies and be an important instrument for building co-operation, owned and agreed by all authorities in the area. My Department will shortly issue further guidance to authorities on the development of such strategies. We are particularly keen for unitary authorities to work jointly with their neighbours.
  Mr. Baker: Does the PFI credit money depend on agreement being reached and maintained between the two authorities?
  Mr. Mullin: I will come to that later.
  The joint PFI scheme and the municipal waste strategy are both positive steps. We will of course monitor the PFI project in the period leading to the contract signature. Any delays or departures from the approved plan, including any caused by differences between the partner local authorities, will obviously be investigated, and may require renewed approval, which could jeopardise the PFI credits. I hope that the authorities will now move swiftly to resolve their differences.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o' clock.

SCOTLAND

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips and (b) theft his Department has recorded in the last five years. [106211]

  Dr. Reid
  Between April 1994 and March 1999, two cases of computer fraud were reported in the Scottish Office; neither case involved computer chips. There were also 26 cases of theft of computer equipment.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106235]

  Dr. Reid
  Between April 1994 and March 1999, there were no reported illegal accesses to Scottish Office computer systems from either inside or outside the Department.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the items in the National Asset Register sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies since 22 February 1999, stating in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total amount raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [104487]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Details regarding asset sales from items listed with National Asset Register of November 1997 and sold up to November 1997 were set out in the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), on 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 74–76W.

  National Asset Register: Sales up to 31 December 1999

  Part of DETR

  Type of asset sold

  Amount realised (£)

  DETR(C)

  Motor vehicles

  67,911

  Land

  512,000

  The Highways Agency

  500 surplus properties and properties retained for construction

  45,880,627

  Various items of plants and equipment

  87,878

  DVLA

  Sale of van

  100

  398W

  National Asset Register: Sales up to 31 December 1999

  Part of DETR

  Type of asset sold

  Amount realised (£)

  MCA

  Land and buildings: auxiliary station, sector base, strip of land, Deal, Kent

  34,000

  Vehicles and boats

  14,000

  Other plant and machinery

  1,000

  VCA

  Other plant and machinery

  1,134

  Sub total:

  46,598,650

  Commission for the New Town

  Mortgages, built assets and land awaiting development

  120,051,900

  English Nature

  Land and buildings

  50,700

  English Partnership

  Building, plant and computer equipment

  542,502

  Environment Agency

  Land and buildings, plant and machinery and fixtures and fittings

  1,957,000

  Health Safety

  Machinery, equipment, computers and plant and vehicles, furniture and office machinery

  396,238

  Waltham Forest Housing Action

  Office equipment and computers

  3,300

  Housing Corporation

  Computer equipment, other office equipment and motor cars

  40,164

  Nationalised Industries

  British Railways Board

  Building and infrastructure, rolling stock, plant and equipment and investments

  31,800,000

  British Waterways Board

  Investment and craft, plant and equipment

  15,948,000

  Civil Aviation

  Vehicles

  658,143

  Authority London Regional Transport

  Land and property and plant and machinery

  2,080,000

  Non Ministerial Government Department

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  Equipment

  375

  Office of Rail Regulator

  IT equipment and fixtures and fittings

  3,150

  Office of Water Services

  IT equipment and fixtures and fittings

  3,677

  Government Department

  Ordnance Survey

  Plant, equipment and computers, fixtures and fittings and vehicles

  29,477

  Sub total:

  173,564,626

  Grand total:

  220,163,276

  Departmental Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the fees his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies collect; how much has been raised or it is anticipated will be raised from each of these fees from 1989–90 to 2004–05; and which of these fees count as negative expenditure. [106002]
  399W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The list of fees with income of £1 million or more collected by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for 1997–98 and 1998–99 is as follows:Fees from the following schemes can be used to part offset relevant expenditure:

  Sale of Cherished Registration Marks

  Assignment, Retention and Transfer of Registration Marks

  Goods Vehicle Operator Licensing

  Public Service Vehicle Operator Licensing

  All the other fees listed can be used to offset relevant expenditure.

  In some cases retained receipts will count as negative expenditure in national accounts aggregates, but in other cases they may score as tax revenues.

  Further information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  DETR fees with income of £1 million or more per annum collected in 1997–98 and 1998–99

  £000

  Fee

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Development Plan Inquiries

  4,182

  3,451

  QEII Conference Centre

  7,114

  8,066

  Driver Licensing

  34,048

  39,519

  Vehicle Registration

  0

  67,655

  Sale of Cherished Registration Marks

  36,246

  47,089

  Assignment, Retention and Transfer of Registration Marks

  30,474

  33,277

  Other Vehicle Fee Services

  3,011

  3,519

  Marine Surveys

  3,842

  3,678

  Vehicle Type Approval Service

  3,463

  2,893

  Management System Certification

  1,322

  1,494

  Theory Tests

  18,769

  18,858

  Car Tests

  37,858

  40,365

  Vocational Tests

  3,711

  4,595

  Motorcycle Tests

  3,110

  3,741

  Approved Driving Instructors/Compulsory Basic Training

  5,005

  4,555

  Heavy Goods Vehicle Testing

  22,035

  23,201

  Public Service Vehicle Testing

  3,194

  3,940

  MOT Standard Control and Document Issue

  9,984

  12,408

  Single Vehicle Approval Testing

  0

  1,646

  Goods Vehicle Operator Licensing

  23,560

  23,637

  Public Service Vehicle Operator Licensing

  5,012

  5,287

  Water Resources Management

  85,192

  91,552

  Integrated Pollution Control

  14,785

  16,850

  Radioactive Substances

  4,093

  5,924

  Waste Regulations

  29,574

  32,352

  Charges for Discharges

  42,732

  47,752

  Navigation Services to Boaters

  3,554

  3,925

  Licensing Nuclear Installations

  17,247

  17,074

  Safety Related Research in the Nuclear

  Industry

  1,983

  1,570

  Electrical Equipment Certification Service

  2,421

  2,537

  Priced Publications

  5,078

  5,092

  Approval of Non-Agricultural Pesticides

  1,672

  1,821

  A40
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reinstate improvements to the A40 in London in the roads programme. [106315]

  Mr. Hill
  In September 1998 we announced a three stage strategy involving local improvements at Western Circus, Gypsy Corner and the replacement of the narrow 400W
  railway bridges and widening between Gypsy Corner and Western Circus to bring the road up to a consistent dual three lane standard. The work at Western Circus has been completed at Gypsy Corner is planned for later this year. Design work has started on the third stage and it is anticipated that this would start in about 2002. A decision on the start date for this project will be for Transport for London. There are no plans to reinstate the major schemes at Gypsy Corner and Western Circus which were cancelled in 1997.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what nugatory costs were incurred in relation to the cancelled improvement of the A40 in London. [106314]

  Mr. Hill
  The majority of the £27 million costs incurred for the cancelled schemes have been in acquiring land and properties over a long period and much of this will be recovered from its resale. Outline planning permission is being sought from the local authorities for its development following which the sale will take place. All other purchased properties which were not demolished have been or are about to be sold.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if land and buildings purchased for the purpose of improving the A40 in London will be retained. [106316]

  Mr. Hill
  Nearly all the land purchased for the cancelled scheme is to be sold. Some will be retained to enable the narrow bridges to be replaced.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of traffic jams on the A40 in West London upon(a) quality of life of adjoining residents, (b) pollution levels, (c) additional fuel consumption and (d) the cost to businesses and individuals. [106317]

  Mr. Hill
  The three stage improvement programme announced in September 1998 addresses all these concerns. The completion of the first stage at Western Circus has already brought benefits of improved traffic flows, particularly eastbound into London. It has also provided safer and pleasant conditions for local residents with improved pedestrian facilities and by the closure of some local roads onto the A40 to prevent rat-running.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the year on year increase in traffic holdups on the A40 in West London. [106318]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency, on behalf of the Secretary of State, monitors traffic flows on all trunk roads throughout the network, including the A40 in West London.

  Westbound queues on the A40 in Acton have not changed significantly in the last decade, while eastbound queues have reduced significantly as a result of the improvements recently completed at Western Circus. The improvements planned at Gypsy Corner this year and the bridge replacements in 2002 will further improve traffic flow at this location.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned to determine the radioactivity levels and isotopic composition of PM10s or dust particles with a diameter of less than 10 microns. [105582]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]Radioactivity in the air is monitored for the DETR by contractors managed by the Environment Agency. As part of this programme, there is a network of high volume air samplers around the UK in which the particles in the air, including PM10s, are drawn onto the air filter papers and the long-lived radioactivity associated with those particles is measured. The Environment Agency publishes the results of this "fall-out" monitoring programme annually in "Radioactivity in the Environment".

  It is known that the main radioactive species attached to PM10s in the air are short-lived decay products of the naturally occurring radioactive gas radon, which are addressed in the Government's radon programme.

  Since 1987 some 400,000 measurements have been carried out in homes most likely to have elevated levels of radon and its decay products.

  Earth Summit 3
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to support the inclusion of trade issues on the agenda of the Earth Summit 3 Conference in 2002; and if he will make a statement. [106866]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Earth Summit 3 Conference will be further considered at the meeting of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development in April, including the agenda.

  We will continue to use all appropriate opportunities that arise through bilateral contacts and our involvement in multilateral fora to pursue our dialogue with other countries, especially developing countries, on the relationship between trade and the environment. This issue will also be discussed at this year's meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development.

  In addition, the United Kingdom will continue to press within the World Trade Organisation for the launch of a comprehensive Round of trade negotiations at the earliest possible opportunity, because we believe that a comprehensive Round offers the best means of delivering trade liberalisation in a manner consistent with the pursuit of global sustainable development and, in particular, delivering benefits for developing countries.

  Safety Regulations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and what type of enforcement notices were issued following failure to comply with(a) the Health and Safety Consultation of Employees Regulations 1996 and (b) the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 in each year since the regulations were in force. [106780]
  402W
  Mr. Meacher
  The numbers of requirements on enforcement notices under the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996, and their type, issued by HSE inspectors for the years the regulations have been in force are given in the following table:

  Requirements on notices issued by HSE under the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees) Regulations 1996

  Type of notice

  Year

  Improvement

  Immediate prohibition

  1996–97

  1

  —

  1997–98

  3

  —

  1998–991

  1

  2

  1 Provisional

  According to available information, one improvement notice was issued by HSE inspectors under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees Regulations 1977 in 1984.

  Information on enforcement notices issued by local authority inspectors, who also enforce these regulations, is not available on a regulation-by-regulation basis.

  Gas-powered Vehicles
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of(a) the number of liquid petroleum gas-powered road vehicles in the UK and (b) the rate of growth in the market for liquid petroleum gas-powered road vehicles in the UK in the last year. [107002]

  Mr. Hill
  The DETR holds detailed information on the vehicle stock in Great Britain, which it receives from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. It is not possible to identify precisely those vehicles that run on LPG. However, the record shows vehicles that run on either gas, or petrol and gas combinations and these are shown in the table.

  1998

  1999

  Increase (%)

  Gas

  2,598

  2,766

  6.0

  Petrol/gas

  8,589

  12,617

  47.0

  Total

  11,187

  15,383

  38.0

  These data are for the end of June each year and are for Great Britain only. Similar information on Northern Ireland vehicles is not available.

  Planning
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to(a) make it easier to relocate footpaths, (b) impose a time limit on definitive map claims and (c) permit green lanes to become bridleways. [107528]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's proposals for changes to rights of way legislation were set out in the consultation paper "Improving Rights of Way in England and Wales". The paper includes proposals on the relocation of footpaths, a time limit on definitive map claims and the reclassification of Roads Used as Public Paths.
  403W
  We are now considering these proposals taking into account the comments in around 2,000 responses to the consultation paper, and we expect to introduce legislation to Parliament soon.

  Rail Facilities (Grants)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what rail facilities grants are available to(a) rail operators and (b) commercial and industrial concerns who wish to gain better access to the rail network. [107347]

  Mr. Hill
  Two grants are available through my Department.

  Freight Facilities Grant is available to any company facing higher costs as a result of choosing to move freight by rail rather than road. These grants assist with the capital costs often associated with rail movements (eg rail infrastructure and specialised loading/unloading equipment).

  Additionally, Track Access Grants may be paid to rail operators to help defray Railtrack charges for access to the rail network in respect of traffic which would otherwise move by road.

  Funding may also be provided from a number of other sources and agencies including Government Departments, Regional Development Agencies and the European Commission.

  Public/Private Partnerships
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the public/private partnership schemes currently running in the Greater London area. [107119]

  Mr. Hill
  There are a total of 97 PFI public/private partnerships currently in progress in London. They are:

  Project list

  Project title

  Status

  Brent and Harrow Health Authority—IT

  OJEC issued

  Brentwood—St. Martin's School

  Shortlist

  British Museum

  Preferred partner

  British Transport Police (London) HQ

  Signed

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  Signed

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust—IT

  Signed

  Chelsea Barracks

  Shortlist

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  Signed

  Court Services—New Court Centres

  OJEC issued

  Croydon Tramlink

  Signed

  Dartford Bridge

  Signed

  Dartford and Gravesham Hospital

  Signed

  Docklands Exhibition Centre

  Signed

  Docklands Light Railway

  Signed

  Greenford High School

  Preferred partner

  Greenwich Health Care NHS Trust—Queen

  Signed

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust—HM Prison

  OJEC issued

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust—Renal Unit

  OJEC issued

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust—Power Station

  Shortlist

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust— Pathology

  OJEC issued

  Hammersmith and West London College of Further

  404W

  Project list

  Project title

  Status

  Havering Hospitals NHS Trust—Oldchurch Hospital

  Preferred partner

  Hillingdon School (Barnhill Community High)

  Signed

  Home Office Headquarters

  Shortlist

  Hounslow and Spelthorne Community and Mental

  OJEC issued

  Immigration Service Detention Centre—Heathrow

  Pre-qualification

  King's College London and UMDS—Teaching

  Signed

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust—Denmark Hill

  Preferred partner

  London Borough of Brent—Chalkhill Estate

  Signed

  London Borough of Brent—Street Lighting

  Signed

  London Borough of Brent—Schools Project

  Shortlist

  London Borough of Camden—Jews Free School

  OJEC issued

  London Borough of Camden—Crowndale Centre

  Pre-information notice

  London Borough of Croydon—IT

  OJEC issued

  London Borough of Enfield—School

  Signed

  London Borough of Greenwich—Residential and Nursing Care

  OJEC issued

  London Borough of Hackney—Technology

  Preferred partner

  Learning Centre (Library)

  London Borough of Haringey—Schools

  Shortlist

  London Borough of Harrow—Harrow Office IT

  Signed

  London Borough of Harrow—Harrow Care Facilities

  Signed

  London Borough of Hounslow—Cabling Equipment

  Pre-information notice

  London Borough of Islington Council—Depot and Vehicle Services

  Signed

  London Borough of Islington—IT

  Expressions of interest

  London Borough of Islington—Voice and Data Communications

  Pre-information notice

  London Borough of Lambeth—Lilian Bayliss School

  Preferred partner

  London Borough of Lambeth—Contract Services

  Signed

  London Borough of Lambeth—Public Housing

  Shortlist

  London Borough of Lewisham—Schools

  Signed

  London Borough of Newham—West Silvertown Urban Village

  Signed

  London Borough of Newham—Schools

  Pre-information notice

  London Borough of Redbridge—Residential Care

  Shortlist

  London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames—Residential Care

  OJEC issued

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets—Mulberry School

  Shortlist

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets—Barkantine Energy Services

  Preferred partner

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets—Grouped Schools

  Shortlist

  Lewisham Hospitals NHS Trust

  Signed

  London Borough of Redbridge—School

  OJEC issued

  London Fire and Civil Defence Authority—IT

  Expressions of interest

  London Fire and Civil Defence Authority (LFCDA)

  Shortlist

  London NHS Trusts—IT

  OJEC issued

  London Police Museum

  Preferred partner

  London University—Bloomsbury CHP

  Preferred partner

  LUL—Connect

  Signed

  LUL—Escalators

  Signed

  LUL—Northern Line Train—Control System

  Expressions of interest

  LUL—Northern Line Trains Rolling Stock

  Signed

  LUL—Power Supply

  Signed

  LUL—Prestige Ticketing

  Signed

  405W

  Project list

  Project title

  Status

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust—Energy Centre

  Signed

  Metropolitan Police—Fire Arms

  Shortlist

  MOD Main Building Refurbishment—Whitehall

  Preferred partner

  Newham Community Health Services NHS Trust

  Shortlist

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust—General Hospital

  Preferred partner

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  Signed

  Parkside NHS Trust—Willesden Hospital

  Shortlist

  Queen Mary and Westfield College

  Preferred partner

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust—Staff

  Signed

  Royal London Homeopathic Hospital NHS Trust

  Shortlist

  South Thames College

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust—St George's Site

  Preferred partner

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust—Car park

  Expressions of interest

  St. Thomas More Catholic Comprehensive School

  Shortlist

  Tower Hamlets HAT

  Treasury Building (GOGGS)

  Preferred partner

  University College London—Cruciform

  Signed

  University College London Hospital NHS Trust

  Preferred partner

  University of Greenwich—Student Village

  Signed

  University of Greenwich—Residential Training

  OJEC issued

  University of Westminster—Catering

  University of Westminster—Recreation

  Preferred partner

  University of Westminster—Student accommodation

  Preferred partner

  Waltham Forest College

  Shortlist

  Waltham Forest Secondary School

  Shortlist

  Waltham Forest LA

  Westminster CC—Pimlico School

  Preferred partner

  Westminster CC—Residential Home

  Signed

  Westminster City Council—Action Housing

  Preferred partner

  Best Value
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the total cost of preparation of best value performance plans by local authorities. [107178]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The costs of preparing best value performance plans depend on a wide variety of local factors, including authorities' current management assignments. Any such costs are expected to be offset by efficiency improvements, and will be monitored by my Department.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will produce a planning guidance note to establish what constitutes(a) brownfield and (b) greenfield sites in respect of a land disposal involving a combination of buildings and used ground and playing fields and undeveloped ground. [107154]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our draft revision of the planning policy guidance on housing (PPG3), published in March 1999, contains a definition for the purposes of development. The final version of PPG3 will be published 406W
  shortly. Guidance on the disposal of open space with recreational value is set out in PPG 17 on Sport and Recreation.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review current legislation on development on playing fields. [107171]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None. Planning Policy Guidance note 17 "Sport and Recreation" already emphasises the special significance of playing fields and that they should normally be protected. The Town and Country Planning (Playing Fields) (England) Direction 1998 requires referral to the Secretary of State of planning applications for development of local authority-owned playing fields or those currently, or in the previous five years, in educational use, where Sport England has objected but the local planning authority is minded to grant permission. The Secretary of State then has the opportunity to call in the application for his own determination.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that playing fields and green spaces in urban areas are not designated as brownfield sites for the purpose of housing and other development proposals. [107170]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Planning Policy Guidance note 17 "Sport and Recreation" emphasises the special significance of playing fields and that they should normally be protected. Forthcoming Planning Policy Guidance note 3 "Housing" will emphasise that local planning authorities should have clear policies for the protection of open spaces and playing fields.

  National Routing Guide
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct the shadow Strategic Rail Authority to discuss with the Association of Train Operating Companies the coverage of the National Routing Guide. [107596]

  Mr. Hill
  The Association of Train Operating Companies are currently undertaking a thorough review of National Routing Guide. The shadow Strategic Rail Authority is a statutory consultee in this process and will ensure that passenger benefits are protected and extended where appropriate.

  Highway Code
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses he received on his consultation for the new edition of the Highway Code. [107657]

  Mr. Hill
  260 responses were received to the consultation on the new edition of the Highway Code.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips and (b) theft his Department has recorded in the last five years. [106216]
  407W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Over the past five years there have not been any recorded cases of fraudulent use of computer chips, but the forty-seven reported incidents of theft include eight occasions when memory chips or like components were taken.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106229]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In the past five years there have been two known instances of illegal access to computer systems in my Department and its predecessors. Both occurred in 1995, one from within and the other from outside.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the research into call centres by the Health and Safety Executive will be completed; and if the findings will be published. [107763]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive has asked the Health and Safety Laboratory to investigate the health risks associated with call centre working practices and to report by the end of 2000. The findings will inform published best practice guidance and decisions by the Health and Safety Executive on whether further action should be taken.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the research being undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive into working practices at call centres will(a) monitor the compliance of centres with the 1989 Noise at Work Regulations and (b) assess the level of hearing loss and tinnitus among call handlers. [107762]

  Mr. Meacher
  The research aims to identify and measure associated psychological and physical health risks (including from noise) and explore factors which may ameliorate them. The responsibility for monitoring compliance with the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 in call centres rests with local authorities.

  Neighbourhood Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy on neighbourhood councils. [107381]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government welcome initiatives to involve citizens in the local decisions that will affect their daily lives. It has on numerous occasions made clear its support for parish councils and area committees.

  National Association of Local Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those discussions that his Department had with the National Association of Local Councils over the last year. [107382]
  408W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Ministers and officials from this Department have had, on a range of occasions, discussions with the National Association of Local Councils over the last year at which a number of topics were discussed.

  Road Speed Limits
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in considering permitting repeater signs to be allowed so as to reinforce the 30 mph speed limit; and if he will make a statement. [107760]

  Mr. Hill
  We are currently conducting a review of speed policy in which the issue of speed limit signing generally is being considered. The review is expected to report its findings shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  Civil Service
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people have been recruited to the Civil Service since 1 May 1997; and how many have left the Civil Service since that date. [105975]

  The Prime Minister
  Information on entrants and leavers to the Civil Service are available on a financial year basis. This shows that in the period 1 April 1997 to 1 April 1999 55,950 people joined the non-industrial Civil Service and 66,512 people left it.

  Tape Recordings
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what tape recordings are(a) routinely and (b) exceptionally made in 10 Downing Street. [107481]

  The Prime Minister
  Tape recordings of press briefings and Prime Ministerial interviews are made as and when appropriate.

  European Commission
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if the European Commission document, "Reforming the Commission", will come before the Council of Ministers for discussion on approval; and what steps he will take to ensure it is implemented. [107492]

  The Prime Minister
  We expect there to be discussion of the proposals for Commission reform at the General Affairs Council on 14 February. We also expect the Council to outline its support and make clear the importance it attaches to the process of reforming the Commission.

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work of the Social Exclusion Unit. [107435]

  The Prime Minister
  I established the Social Exclusion Unit in December 1997. Since then it has produced reports and action plans on school exclusion and
  409W
  truancy, rough sleeping, poor neighbourhoods, teenage pregnancy and 16–18-year-olds not in education, employment or training.

  The Unit was set up on a time-limited basis and its success was reviewed in the summer of 1999. I announced the results of this review in December 1999.

  It was clear from both the quality of the Unit's work and its impact so far that there is a continuing role for it to play. I have therefore decided that it will continue in existence, and be reviewed again at the end of 2002.

  I will announce a new work programme for the Unit in the summer, once its current project to develop a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal is completed.

  Age Discrimination
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he has taken since May 1997 to combat age discrimination; and if he will make a statement. [107145]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]The Government undertook a year long consultation on age discrimination in employment. The results were set out in the report "Action on Age" which was published in August 1998. One of the conclusions of the consultation was that a non-statutory Code of Practice could provide a useful tool for tackling age discrimination in employment.

  A draft Code of Practice was developed with the help and advice of key partners including the CBI, TUC, Age Concern, IPD, and the Institute of Management. Consultation on the Code took place from November 1998 and the final version was launched in June 1999. The Code covers all aspects of employment, including recruitment, selection, training, development, redundancy and retirement, and provides detailed guidance and case studies to help employers to tackle age discrimination in their organisations. Over 40,000 copies have been distributed since its launch. It is being backed by a publicity campaign to promote good practice and practical help for employers wanting to adopt the principles set out in the Code. The effectiveness of the Code is being evaluated through a large scale research project which looks in detail at employer policies and practices in recruitment and employment and the impact this has on age diversity in their workforce. The results of the evaluation will be published in 2001.

  Cabinet Committees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish an updated list of Ministerial Committees of the Cabinet and their membership. [107624]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 504W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters on(a) Government policy and (b) constituency matters
  410W
  Government Departments have received since 1 May 1997 from those Members of the House who have refused to take the oath of allegiance. [107630]

  The Prime Minister
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he received from members of the public in 1999; and how many of these were replied to by(a) his office and (b) him personally. [107631]

  The Prime Minister
  During 1999 my office received 465,432 letters and cards from members of the public—an increase of 84 per cent. over the previous year. The response to any correspondence is considered on an individual basis.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department has had with European Commissioner Poul Nielson concerning the effect that enlargement will have on the European Union aid budget. [106434]

  Clare Short
  I have had several discussions with Commissioner Nielson about the EC aid budget, but not about EU enlargement.

  In July 1999, EU Foreign ministers agreed that the Commission should table proposals for the overall division of the EC external assistance budget, to allow Council discussion of development priorities as a whole and an opportunity to focus more EC resources on the poorest countries. I have pressed Commissioner Nielson on this and on other EC development issues and will continue to do so. The disproportionate amount of EC aid going to richer countries, and the inertia of the EC in rectifying this, are unacceptable.

  When the EU is enlarged to include new member states during the period 2000–06, the European Parliament and the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission, will jointly adjust the multi-year budget ceilings to take account of expenditure requirements arising from the enlargement. Such adjustments are not expected to affect the aid budget.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips, and (b) theft her Department has recorded in the last five years. [106212]

  Clare Short
  (a) We are not aware of any recorded cases of computer fraud in DFID over the last five years.

  (b) Since 1995, there have been eight cases recorded of computer equipment being stolen from DFID. Of these, seven were thefts of laptop computers, and one was a case of memory chips being stolen from a number of PCs during a break in at DFID's London Headquarters building.
  411W
  The breakdown of these incidents is as follows:

  Year

  Item

  Value £

  1995

  Laptop stolen from a vehicle in Bosnia

  1,000

  Computer memory chips stolen from 94VS

  10,000

  1997

  Three laptops stolen from AH

  3,000

  1998

  Two laptops stolen from 94VS

  2,000

  1999

  Laptop stolen from 94VS

  1,000

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in her Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside her Department. [106234]

  Clare Short
  There is no evidence of any illegal access to DFID computer systems over the past five years.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department(a) promised and (b) provided to Pristina Hospital, Kosovo. [106437]

  Clare Short
  At the beginning of July 1999, a joint DFID/NHS assessment team visited Pristina University Hospital to identify key facilities that required immediate restoration, including infrastructure repair, provision of essential equipment, management support and training for health care professionals. We have agreed to carry out this programme of work and progress is well under way.

WALES

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips and (b) theft his Department has recorded in the last five years. [106222]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  From 1995 to 30 June 1999, the Welsh Office had no known cases of computer fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips, but there was one incident of computer theft in 1996 when a portable computer was stolen.

  From 1 July 1999 to date the Wales Office has had no known cases of computer fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips, and no recorded cases of computer theft.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106226]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There have been no known instances of computer hackers illegally accessing the Department's computer system from either within or outside the Department, in any of the past five years. This relates to the Welsh Office from 1995 to 30 June 1999, and to the Wales Office from 1 July 1999 to date.

DEFENCE

  British Troops (Kosovo)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he was first informed of defects in the small arms carried by British troops on active service in Kosovo. [104406]

  Mr. Spellar
  The SA80, carried by British troops on active service in Kosovo, is generally an effective weapon system and is currently planned to remain in service for the foreseeable future. We are, however, investigating potential improvements to the SA80 at present and I expect to receive recommendations in due course.

  British Forces Broadcasting
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make funding available to British Forces Broadcasting Services to enable the temporary radio station for the Colchester Garrison to be made a permanent service. [107166]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor gave him in his reply on 21 July 1999,Official Report, column 533W. The trial will conclude later this year and the way ahead will then be assessed.

  Air Cadets
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he had made of the contribution air cadet organisations make to the public's perception of the RAF. [107405]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Air Cadets are an integral part of communities nation-wide and make an important contribution to the public perception of the RAF.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the operation of Pristina airfield in Kosovo will be handed over to an ally; and to whom. [107087]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]British forces are scheduled to pass on their lead nation responsibilities for Pristina airfield in June 2000. It is currently expected that these responsibilities will be assumed by one or more of our NATO allies, although a final decision has not yet been taken.

  RAF/ATC
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the relationship between the Royal Air Force and the Air Training Corps. [107406]

  Mr. Spellar
  The RAF commits significant resources to the Air Training Corps, in recognition of its importance as a highly successful national youth organisation, as a significant contributor to the public's perception of the RAF, and a source of high quality recruits to the Services.

  Nancekuke
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 January 2000,
  413W
  Official Report, column 823, for what reason the (a) health and (b) other records of everyone employed at Nancekuke have not been kept. [106748]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]In my statement, I explained that we are not aware of any comprehensive database from which to obtain the sum total of people employed at Nancekuke over the period in question. It is, however, the case that at least some individual personal files relating to former employees at Nancekuke have been kept and are held at the Defence Storage and Distribution Centre (Llangennech). We are not aware of the whereabouts of any separate medical records.

  Earl's Court
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department paid for the use of the Earl's Court facilities in each of the last five years. [106500]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]The MOD has not incurred any expenditure for the use of the Earl's Court facilities over the last five years.

  Service Personnel (NHS Treatment)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what priority service personnel are given for treatment within the National Health Service. [107446]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Helicopter Flying School
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the value of the PFI contract at the Defence Helicopter Flying School; and what is the length of the contract. [100284]

  Mr. Spellar
  The value of the Defence Helicopter Flying School PFI contract is in the region of £500 million at current prices. I am withholding the exact value of the contract under Exemption 11 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The contract period is 15 years from 1 April 1997.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Employment Relations Act 1999
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which sections of the Employment Relations Act 1999 have been implemented and on what date; and what is the timetable for the implementation of the remaining sections. [107477]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The table shows which sections of the Employment Relations Act 1999 have been brought into force and on what date.

  Provision

  Description

  Brought into force

  S.I. Number

  s.2

  Detriment related to trade union membership

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.3

  Blacklists

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  414W

  Provision

  Description

  Brought into force

  S.I. Number

  s.7

  Maternity and parental leave

  15 December 1999

  1999/2830

  s.8

  Time off for dependants

  15 December 1999

  1999/2830

  s.9

  Consequential amendments

  15 December 1999

  1999/2830

  S.13(1) to (3)

  Interpretation

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  S.18(1) to (5)

  Agreement to exclude dismissal rights

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.18(6)

  Agreement to exclude dismissal rights

  30 September 1999

  1999/2509

  s.19

  Part-time work:discrimination

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.20

  Part-time work: code of practice

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.21

  Code of practice: supplemental

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.22

  National minimum wage: communities

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.23

  Power to confer rights on individuals

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.26

  ACAS: general duty

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.27

  ACAS: reports

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.28

  Abolition of Commissioners

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.29

  The Certification Officer

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.30

  Partnerships at work

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.31

  Employment agencies

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.32

  Employment rights: employment outside Great Britain

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.33

  Unfair dismissal: special and additional awards

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.34(4)

  Indexation of amounts, &c.

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.34(1)(2)(3)(5)(6)

  Indexation of amounts, &c.

  17 December 1999

  1999/3374

  s.35

  Guarantee payments

  25 October 1999

  1999/3374

  s.36(1) (partially)

  Sections 33 to 35: consequential

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.36(a) (to extent that not already in force)(2)(3)

  Sections 33 to 35: consequential

  17 December 1999

  1999/3374

  s.37

  Compensatory award etc.: removal of limit in certain cases

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.38

  Transfer of undertakings

  9 September 1999

  1999/2509

  s.39

  Minimum wage: information

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.40

  Dismissal of school staff

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.42

  Orders and regulations

  9 September 1999

  1999/2509

  s.43

  Finance

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  s.44 (partially)

  Repeals

  Sch.2

  Union membership: detriment

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  Sch.4

  Leave for family reasons etc.

  15 December 1999

  1999/2830

  Sch.6

  The Certification Officer

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  Sch.7 (partially)

  Employment agencies

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  Sch.9 (partially)

  Repeals

  25 October 1999

  1999/2830

  The Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations (S.I. 1999/3312) were made on 10 December 1999 under powers in the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by sections 7 and 9 and Schedule 4 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. They came into force on 15 December 1999.
  415W
  The first order under section 34 of the 1999 Act, the Employment Rights (Increase of Limits) Order (S.I. 1999/3375) was made on 17 December 1999 and will come into force on 1 February 2000.

  The Government's intentions for implementing the remaining provisions of the 1999 Act were set out in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) on 21 October 1999, Official Report, column 613W.

  Photovoltaics
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the economic(a) advantages and (b) disadvantages of a public support scheme for solar electricity such as that which operates in Germany. [107480]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) on 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 290W.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which solar photovoltaic applications can be connected to the national grid via a regular socket; what statutory powers apply to such connections; and what assessment he has made of their potential contribution to meeting the Government's target of achieving 10 per cent. of electricity supply from renewable sources by 2010. [107479]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Under the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988 (SI 1057 and amendments), "no person may operate a generating plan in parallel with a Regional Electricity Company's (REC's) [Public Electricity Supplier's (PES' s)] system without the written agreement of the REC [PES]". This includes small PV generators connected to a socket outlet.

  Technical requirements for connection of embedded generators are covered by Engineering Recommendation G59—"Recommendations for the Connection of Embedded Generating Plant to the Regional Electricity Companies' Distribution Systems"—published by the Electricity Association. Following discussions between the electrical supply and photovoltaic industries, we understand that the Electricity Association are shortly to publish a draft Engineering Recommendation G77—"UK Technical Guidelines for Inverter Connected Single-Phase Photovoltaic (PV) Generators up to 5kVA". In both documents it is implied that a fixed connection should be made from the embedded generator to an appropriate connection point at, or leading to, the distribution system.

  With respect to the second part of the question, I refer my hon. Friend to a recent assessment by my Department. This has been reported in "New & Renewable Energy: Prospects in the UK for the 21st Century. Supporting Analysis. March 1999. ETSU R-122". We have not carried out any specific assessment looking at PV systems connected to socket outlets.

  UK Competitiveness Indicators
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he proposes to address the criticism of United Kingdom management made in his report, the United Kingdom Competitiveness Indicators 1999; and if he will make a statement. [106521]
  416W
  Ms Hewitt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment have decided to establish the Council for Excellence in Management and Leadership, under the Chairmanship of Sir Anthony Cleaver, with the overall aim of enabling UK managers to attain and sustain world class performance. It will achieve this by identifying the main issues for management and leadership and the key stakeholders who need to take action. It will address, in particular, the needs of small firms. The Council will review the quality of management education and training, advise on action to be taken, and report annually to Government and stakeholders on progress.

  Electricity Generators
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many non-fossil fuel obligation electricity generators projects failed to receive planning permissions between 1 May 1997 and 31 December 1999. [107379]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]On the best available information, out of 129 determinations, 19 Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) projects have been refused planning permission between 1 May 1997 and 30 November 1999, the latest date to which we have planning information.

  Aerospace Equipment Manufacturers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of extending launch aid to aerospace equipment manufacturers. [107565]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Launch investment is a risk-sharing Government investment in specific civil aerospace projects in the UK, enabled by the provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. It has been used to support the design and development of airframes (or parts of airframes, such as wings), helicopters and aeroengines. The investment is not a grant and is repayable to the Government at a real rate of return, usually via levies on sales of the product developed. Large aerospace projects typically have high costs, pose a high level of risk, and generate a return only in the long-term. This has created a market deficiency in the availability of development funds for such projects. Launch investment remedies this, and also recognises the international mobility of aerospace projects, and the significant financial incentives that are available in other countries.

  Any UK aerospace company can apply for launch investment, and each application is considered on its merits against a range of established criteria and also, by the Treasury, against public expenditure constraints. An applicant must demonstrate that the project is technically and commercially viable; that Government investment is essential for the project to proceed in the UK on the scale and in the timescale specified in the application; and that Government will recoup the investment at a real rate of return. Finally, the Government must be persuaded that support for the project will lead to major strategic advantages to the UK economy.

  Synchrotron Radiation Facility
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the cost of the report produced by ADD Consultants on the appraisal of options for the site of the proposed new synchrotron radiation facility. [107396]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost of the report produced by ADD Consultants, Investment Appraisal for Options for the Site of the Proposed New Synchrotron Facility, delivered to Office of Science and Technology in June 1999, was £7,203 including VAT.

  Asteroid Task Force
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the objectives of the Asteroid Task Force are; and when it plans to(a) make its first report and (b) complete its work. [107482]

  Ms Hewitt
  The objectives of the Near Earth Objects Task Force are to:

  1. confirm the nature of the hazard and the potential level of risk;

  2. identify the current UK contribution to the international efforts;

  3. advise HMG on what further action to take in the light of 1 and 2 and on the communication issues to the public.

  I expect to receive the report of the Task Force this summer.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the estimated annual running cost of the Asteroid Task Force. [107485]

  Ms Hewitt
  No on-going annual cost for the Near Earth Objects Task Force is envisaged. We expect to receive the Task Force's report this summer.

  Ex-miners (Coal Allowance)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the average tonnage of coal delivered to eligible ex-miners for the last full year for which figures are available. [107531]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The average tonnage of fuel delivered to all beneficiaries under the terms of the National Concessionary Fuel Agreement and BACM Agreement during the year 1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999 was four tonnes.

  Electricity Cabling
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 524W, what is the expected life of electricity cabling. [107111]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Electricity cables do not have a single age at which they cease to be functional; instead there is a range of ages. As could be seen in my previous answer, it is not uncommon for cables to be installed and functioning for well in excess of 50 years. From information collected at the time of the last review of distribution companies, the "age" at which cables are replaced ranges from about 45 years to over 100 years.

  As with all assets, cables are replaced on condition and not just because they reach a certain age.

  Post Office Employees
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the percentage of(a) registered disabled people, (b) women, (c) people from ethnic minorities and (d) people from (i) independent schools, (ii) grammar schools and (iii) other schools that worked for the Post Office in each of the years (i) 1970, (ii) 1979, (iii) 1989 and (iv) 1999. [107011]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]The Post Office have supplied the following data on employees in 1999 derived from information voluntarily supplied on application forms:

  Percentage

  Registered disabled

  1.5

  Women

  20

  Ethnic minorities

  8.6

  These percentages relate only to Post Office employees and do not include sub-postmasters. Historic data for earlier years is not readily available and details of educational establishments attended are not held.

  Arms Sales (Zimbabwe)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many representatives of arms manufacturers have made representations to(a) him, (b) his advisers and (c) officials about arms sales to Zimbabwe over the last 17 months; and if he will list the individuals and companies concerned, indicating the dates on which representations were made; [106939]

  (2) if he will list the (a) people and (b) organisations representing defence manufacturers who have made representations to his Department about arms sales to Zimbabwe over the last 17 months; and when such representations were made. [106949]

  Dr. Howells
  No such representations have been made to any Minister or special adviser in this Department, or relevant officials in the Export Credit Guarantees Department, the Export Control Organisation or the Engineering Industries Directorate of my Department, or the relevant export promotion directorate of British Trade International.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the sale of spare parts for Hawk jets to Zimbabwe will be covered by a loan from the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [108059]

  Mr. Caborn
  No.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Environmental Impact Assessment on the Ilisu Hydro-Electric project in Turkey will be(a) completed and (b) published. [107014]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is expected to be completed in March/April and made publicly available shortly thereafter.
  419W
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the compliance of the Ilisu Dam project with guidelines of the World Bank for(a) ECGD and (b) developmental support. [107019]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are only considering ECGD support for the Ilisu Dam; as this is not a development project, such support, if agreed, will not be conditional on compliance with World Bank guidelines, although we are looking for international guidelines to be reflected in the approach to the project. The statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of 21 December outlined four main concerns, which we require to see addressed before a decision is made on ECGD support. These are:

  resettlement

  water quality

  downstream water flow

  preservation of the archaeological heritage of Hasankeyf

  We have published two reports commissioned to assist with the decision making process and await the outcome of further work including a full Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the compliance of the Ilisu Dam project with the criteria of the UN Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of Transboundary Waterways. [107020]

  Mr. Caborn
  The assessment of such compliance is a matter which will need to be addressed. The statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of 21 December, raised as one of our concerns the issue of assuring the maintenance of downstream flows.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the report of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate investigation into the operating practices of the Sellafield MOX Demonstration Facility. [106710]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I understand that HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate is preparing a report which it will publish in mid February.

  Utilities Bill
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if any financial limit is to be placed upon the level of compensation for loss of office which he can determine should be paid to the Chairman and other members of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority under Schedule 4, paragraph 4(3) of the Utilities Bill; and if he will make a statement. [107664]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to Schedule 1, not Schedule 4, of the Utilities Bill.

  There is no statutory limit to the level of compensation that may be determined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the level of compensation will depend on the circumstances of the case.
  420W
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the categories of misbehaviour on the part of the Chairman of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority which could give grounds for removal from office under Schedule 1, paragraph 3(2)(b) of the Utilities Bill include refusal to follow his advice; and if he will make a statement. [107666]

  Mrs. Liddell
  No. There is no change from the equivalent Electricity Act 1989 and Gas Act 1985 provisions in this respect.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if any financial limit is to be placed on the level of remuneration and allowances which he can determine should be paid to the Chairman and members of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority under Schedule 1, paragraph 4, of the Utilities Bill; and if he will make a statement. [107663]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There will be no statutory limit. Remuneration and allowances will be determined having regard to the need to recruit and retain individuals with the necessary qualities and experience.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people have benefited from the national minimum wage since its introduction in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [107251]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 3 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question regarding the number of people who have benefited from the national minimum wage since its introduction in Shrewsbury and Atcham, and Shropshire.
  Definitive estimates on the number of people that have benefited from the national minimum wage are not yet available. Currently available estimates for assessing the effect take data from both the New Earnings Survey and the Labour Force Survey and adjust them for known limitations in each. However, the latest adjusted estimates are based on data for the spring (March - May) 1999 Labour Force Survey and this period spans the introduction date for the national minimum wage legislation. As a result, the adjusted estimates may be giving a misleading picture of the effect of the minimum wage legislation since employees might legitimately have been earning below the minimum wage rates in March 1999.
  The currently available estimates were published in an ONS First Release on 14 October and show that the number of people earning below the minimum wage rates fell significantly between 1998 and 1999. A copy of this first release is available in the House of Commons Library.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Inspections
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will publish a copy of the questionnaire used by Ofsted inspectors in seeking
  421W
  the views of schools on the effectiveness of their local education authority as part of the local education authority inspection process; [107621]

  (2) if he will publish a summary analysis of the questionnaire results showing schools' views of local education authorities for all authorities that have been inspected by Ofsted to date; [107622]

  (3) if he will make available to any local education authority that requests it a copy of the summary analysis of the questionnaire results showing schools' views of their local education authority as part of the Ofsted inspection process. [107623]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Copies of the questionnaire seeking the views of schools on the effectiveness of their local education authority as part of the local education authority inspection process are available from: the LEA Inspections Team, the Audit Commission, 1 Vincent Square, London SW1 2PN. I have also placed a copy in the Libraries of the House.

  A copy of the summary analysis of the school survey results is given to the local education authority by the inspection team during the inspection. Further copies will be supplied to the authority on request by the Audit Commission.

  No up-to-date summary analysis of the school survey results for all local education authorities inspected by Ofsted and the Audit Commission to date exists at present. This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Libraries.

  Members of Devolved Governments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he has determined whether the activities of Members of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Greater London Assembly will constitute paid employment for the purposes of Access to Work. [107300]

  Ms Hodge
  Members of the Scottish Parliament, Assembly Members in Wales, Members of the Legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland and Members of the Greater London Assembly will all be paid for their work, and this constitutes paid employment for the purposes of the Access to Work programme in Great Britain and the equivalent scheme in Northern Ireland.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to disseminate examples of good practice among(a) employers and (b) service providers in meeting their obligations to make reasonable adjustments in a practical and cost-effective way, in connection with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [106202]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 makes it unlawful for employers and providers of goods, facilities and services to discriminate against disabled people by treating them less favourably than other people, or by failing to make reasonable adjustments. For service providers, the new 422W
  Code of Practice which we published on 29 June 1999 explains the duties under Part III of the Act and gives practical guidance on how to prevent discrimination against disabled people, including examples of good practice. In October 1999, we published an information booklet called "An Introduction for Small and Medium-sized Businesses", explaining the new and existing duties on businesses and organisations under Part III of the DDA. For employers, there has been an employment Code of Practice since 1996. More recently, we have published a booklet called "Employing Disabled People: A Good Practice Guide for Managers and Employers", which contains examples of good practice and this has been promoted by the Federation of Small Businesses to its members. The examples it contains are based on 40 case studies that were published following a DfEE-funded research project, in a report called "Integrating Disabled Employees".

  The Secretary of State launched the "See the Person" campaign, in June 1999, to publicise the DDA and the rights of disabled people. It is specifically aimed at increasing awareness among businesses and disabled people of the requirements and opportunities provided by the DDA, as well as more generally aiming to improve the public's understanding of the barriers faced by disabled people. The campaign has included TV adverts, posters, articles in various publications, radio advertisements and articles in national, regional and specialist press. It helps promote the DDA Helpline from which employers and service providers can obtain copies of the booklet and guide mentioned previously as well as further information about the Act and the Codes of Practice.

  EU Handbooks
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his policy on teachers contributing to handbooks funded by the EU on EU policy; what United Kingdom input there was to "Euroquest-A Trail of Questions and Answers about the European Union"; and how many copies have been printed for distribution in the United Kingdom. [105694]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]The UK Government do not have a policy on teachers contributing to handbooks funded by EU on EU policy. The institutions of the European Union are free to approach any UK or European citizen to ask them to contribute to their publications.

  I understand that the Euroquest booklet was funded entirely by the Representation of the European Commission in the UK, and that the content of the booklet was produced in collaboration with a number of UK educationalists and the Central Bureau for International Education and Training. It is designed as an activity book to support teachers in their work on the National Curriculum at Key Stage 2, and is intended to provide stimulus to further classroom discussion. One million copies were produced and approximately half have been distributed to schools on request.

  National Learning Targets
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the national learning targets and the current policies against target for each and all other targets set by his Department. [107539]
  423W
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]My Department's Public Service Agreement (PSA), published in the Department's Annual Report, sets out its key performance targets. The DfEE Annual Report and the Annual Report of the Employment Service also include other performance-related information. Targets for Agencies and Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies can be found annually in the Next Steps Report and Executive and Non-Departmental Public Bodies Report on the Stationary Office website. My Department has also published a Strategic Framework to 2002 "Learning and Working Together for the Future", setting out the aim and objectives, targets and supporting policies for that period; and a leaflet, "National Learning Targets for England for 2002", and the publication "National Learning Targets Action Plan", setting out the Government's National Learning Targets to 2002.

  World Education Forum
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will attend the World Education Forum to be held in Senegal in April. [107426]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not attend the World Education Forum. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has stated previously that she will participate.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of the private finance initiative on reductions in numbers of school playing fields. [107165]

  Jacqui Smith
  Section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 prevents local authorities and governing bodies from disposing, or changing the use, of school playing fields, without the prior consent of the Secretary of State. Section 77 applies also where such disposal or change of use is required as part of an approved PFI scheme.

  PFI and other Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) encourage schools to make the most of their assets in collaboration with the private sector and in the interest of their pupils. That interest is not served by selling off those playing fields which children need for sport. Indeed, many PPP proposals are specifically aimed at upgrading school sports facilities.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of school playing fields are capable of sustaining minimum standards of seven hours a week use. [107158]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many private finance initiative schemes for schools have involved the sale of parts of school playing fields. [107157]

  Jacqui Smith
  Contracts have been awarded on eight schools' projects in England under the Private Finance Initiative, six of which are for building projects covering new or replacement single schools and two of which are 424W
  for Local Education Authority-wide service contracts. None of these schemes has involved the sale of parts of school playing fields.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review Circular 3/99, relating to the protection of school playing fields. [107162]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government will review Circular 3/99, "The Protection of School Playing Fields", during the Spring, with a view to announcing any changes in June.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions have taken place with national bodies with expertise in related matters since the issuing of Circular 3/99. [107160]

  Jacqui Smith
  The three national bodies cited in Circular 3/99, "The Protection of School Playing Fields", are the National Playing Fields Association, the Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR) and Learning through Landscapes. Since the Circular was published on 7 June 1999, Ministers have met with the CCPR and officials have held several meetings, and corresponded, with all three organisations.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school playing fields or parts of fields have been sold since the issue of Circular 3/99; and if he will make a statement on its impact on sales of playing fields. [107161]

  Jacqui Smith
  Since the issue of Circular 3/99, the Secretary of State has approved 13 applications to sell areas of land affecting sports pitches at schools. Of these, six involved sports pitches at closed schools and a further three provided new or improved sports facilities including, in one case, a new sports hall. In the four remaining applications, the sales proceeds have all been reinvested for educational purposes.

  The introduction in Circular 3/99 of strict criteria against which decisions are made has been a great success. Since the issue of this Circular, the Department has received an average of just five applications a month to dispose or change the use of sports pitches. Not all of these applications involve the loss of a playing field. For example, some are for transfers of ownership or involve acquiring new replacement pitches. Authorities now see how tough our criteria are and generally bring forward only those proposals which make all round sense.

  After-school Clubs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many after-school clubs there are in England and Wales. [107122]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are committed to supporting after-school-hours provision to support pupils' learning and to provide child care for working parents.

  DfEE does not itself collate information on the number of out-of-school child care clubs which have been set up, but Kids' Clubs Network estimate that there are now around 5,000 such schemes in England and Wales. In addition, the New Opportunities Fund has so far made awards to 361 new or expanded out-of-school child care clubs in England and Wales.
  425W
  In England, research shows that 98 per cent. of primary and 99 per cent. of secondary schools already provide out-of-school-hours learning activities for their pupils. The New Opportunities Fund has already made grants covering 957 schools in England to help them provide more and better activities and by 2001 will have supported at least a quarter of primary and half of all secondary and special schools. From April this year, schools in disadvantaged areas will also be able to benefit from a new Standards Fund grant to help them fund out-of-school-hours learning. Out-of-school-hours learning in Wales is a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

  School Security
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about school security. [107063]

  Jacqui Smith
  We take the issue of school security very seriously. The Working Group on School Security, set up after the fatal stabbing of Philip Lawrence in December 1995, continues to meet on a regular basis to advise on school security matters. Most of the Group's recommendations, published in its report in May 1996, have been implemented. One of those recommendations was that money should be made available specifically for school security improvements. I announced last month that £22 million would be made available in 2000–01 for school security, building on the £66 million that has been made available over the past three years.

  School Exclusions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many year 11, 10 and 9 pupils were excluded from schools in London and the South East in the academic year 1998–99. [106758]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is currently collecting information on the number of permanent exclusions in 1998–99 in maintained primary, secondary and special schools. Provisional information will be published in a Statistical First Release in May.

  The latest available information on the number of pupils aged 13, 14 and 15 who were permanently excluded from schools in the London and South East Government Office Regions is shown in the following table.

  Number and percentage of permanent exclusions for pupils aged 13, 14 and 15 in the Greater London and South East Government Office Regions 1997–98

  Pupils by age1

  Greater London

  South East

  England

  Age 13

  Number of permanent exclusions

  396

  355

  2,385

  Percentage of school population2

  0.58

  0.43

  0.44

  Age 14

  Number of permanent exclusions

  523

  513

  3,351

  Percentage of school population2

  0.77

  0.62

  0.61

  Age 15

  Number of permanent exclusions

  356

  355

  2,447

  Percentage of school population2

  0.55

  0.44

  0.46

  1 Ages as at 31 August 1997

  2 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number of pupils in the age group

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Standards
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he plans to raise the performance of those prisons that are identified as performing to a poor standard. [108117]

  Mr. Straw
  In the last year, the Prison Service has enhanced its management of under-performing prisons. To strengthen this development, I am announcing today the establishment of a working group on Targeted Performance Improvement. Its terms of reference are to develop proposals for enhancing management arrangements to identify failing prisons; develop special measures to improve performance within such establishments, including effective partnerships with other criminal justice agencies and the private voluntary sectors; and develop a management tool to support the more rigorous line management of all establishments; including ways of recognising good performance and disseminating best practice with particular reference to the development of community partnerships in the locality of each.

  The working group is chaired by Lord Laming and its other members are Phil Wheatley, Deputy Director General; Roger Brook, former head of the Audit Commission; Patrick Carter, non-executive Director of the Prison Service; and Una Padel, of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Laming to report to him and the Director General by 1 May this year.

  West Mercia Police Authority
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers West Mercia Police Authority had in the Worcester Division, in each year from 1992 to date. [107009]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information, which is set out in the table, has been provided by the Chief Constable of West Mercia. It is not possible for the force to provide comparable information on police numbers at Divisional level for 1992 to 1996 because of force re-organisation in 1997.

  West Mercia Constabulary Worcester Division—police numbers, 1997 to 2000

  Year1

  Number of police officers

  1997

  341

  1998

  341

  1999

  365

  2000

  347

  1 As at 1 January

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of animals in testing household products. [106992]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government have a responsibility for public and environmental safety. Some regulatory safety evaluations require the use of protected animals where there are no viable alternatives. A number of the substances in current use pose risks either through
  427W
  normal use or, in the case of solvents and glues, for example, through misuse. European directives have a bearing on the requirements to test both new and existing substances and products for manufacture, transport, sale and use. This includes household products for which a regulatory requirement applies.

  The need for testing household products on animals is to be considered by the Animal Procedures Committee as part of its planned work on the cost/benefit assessment carried out under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  1,477 scientific procedures and 1,448 animals were used for this purpose in Great Britain during 1998, the last year for which figures are available. In 1997, comparable figures were 2,026 procedures and 2,004 animals. As with any other scientific procedure under the 1986 Act, animals are used to test household products only where necessary and where there are no alternatives.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the policing of the arrangements for the state visit of the Chinese President. [107733]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office has received a number of representations on this issue, including approximately 320 items of public correspondence and over 100 letters from Members of Parliament.

  Ms Oona King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what objectives were set for the policing of the state visit of the Chinese President by (a) the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and (b) the Home Office; and what assessment he has made of the Metropolitan Police's performance in meeting those objectives. [107115]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police's intention with regard to the policing of the visit of the Chinese President was to police events in a manner compatible with their Statement of Common Purpose and Values by endeavouring to: ensure the security of Her Majesty the Queen, the distinguished visitors and all participants; facilitate the arrival and dispersal of all persons taking part in the Ceremonies; provide crowd control, ensuring public safety and preventing disorder so as not to impair the dignity of the Ceremonies; control traffic and minimise congestion; provide advice and assistance to members of the public and prevent crime, or if crime is committed, take all reasonable steps to apprehend offenders.

  No objectives were set by the Home Office for the visit.

  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has indicated that the conclusions of a review of the policing arrangements will be made public and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will consider these in due course.

  Ms Oona King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has given the Metropolitan Police on their operational procedure in the light of the state visit of the Chinese President to London. [107117]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None.

  Paediatric Pathology
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce paediatric pathology for the post-mortem examination of children; and if he will make a statement. [107569]

  Mr. Boateng
  Responsibility for the choice of pathologist for a coroner's post-mortem lies in law with the coroner. In cases of child deaths, the Home Office has, for over 10 years, drawn to the attention of coroners the advantages of using pathologists with appropriate skills and training in paediatric pathology.

  CCTV
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to local authorities regarding the application of Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention to CCTV(a) in privately owned shopping malls and (b) elsewhere. [107123]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) schemes funded by the Home Office are governed by codes of practice and data protection legislation to ensure that the systems are operated fairly and lawfully, and with due regard to individual rights to privacy, as provided in Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

  The Human Rights Act 1998 will give further effect in United Kingdom law to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Convention. A properly regulated and controlled CCTV system should fully comply with the requirements of the Act.

  The Data Protection Registrar is consulting on a draft code of practice, for users of public space CCTV systems, on the standards to be met to comply with their legal obligations under the Act. The intention is to issue the Code later in the year.

  Advice on the impact of the new data protection and human rights legislation will be included in the prospectus for the next round of the CCTV Initiative, which we will issue in the spring.

  Ms Oona King: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money from the Government's CCTV initiative for England and Wales he estimates will be allocated to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets; and when the money will be made available. [107118]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Tower Hamlets Crime Reduction Partnership has three proposals under consideration in the first round of Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television Initiative, covering: car parks at the London Hospital (£319,000 sought); a borough-wide mobile Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) system (£193,000 sought); and an extension to CCTV coverage in Brick Lane and the surrounding areas (£501,000).

  The Home Office Crime Reduction Unit has asked the partnership to provide further information in support of the bids, and funding decisions will be made as soon as possible after this has been provided. Grant payments will be made to the successful schemes at the appropriate stages of implementation.
  429W
  The partnership will have an opportunity to submit further proposals under the next phase of funding under the CCTV Initiative, details of which will be announced in the spring.

  Reconviction Statistics
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list, for the most recent 12 months for which figures are available, the percentage of offenders whose age at the time of discharge from prison or commencement of a non-custodial order was(a) under 21 years, (b) 21 to 24 years, (c) 25 to 29 years and (d) aged 30 years or over, who were reconvicted within two years of (i) discharge from prison, (ii) commencement of a probation order, (iii) commencement of a community service order and (iv) commencement of a combination order, indicating the percentage reconviction figures for each age group in respect of each disposal; [107051]

  (2) if he will list for the most recent 12 months for which figures are available the percentage of offenders with (a) no previous convictions, (b) one or two previous convictions, (c) three to six previous convictions, (d) seven to 10 previous convictions and (e) 11 or more previous convictions who have been reconvicted (i) within two years of discharge from prison, (ii) within two years from commencement of a probation order, (iii) within two years of commencement of a community service order and (iv) within two years of commencement of a combination order. [107050]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The most recently available relevant information relates to reconvictions in samples of prisoners discharged from prison in 1995 and of offenders commencing community penalties in the first quarter of 1995.

  The source of this information on reconviction is the Home Office Offenders Index. This does not contain information on cautioning of offenders. It should be borne in mind that this information relates to reconviction rather than reoffending.

  Table 1: All offenders reconvicted1, by age at discharge from custody or commencement of a community penalty2, within two years of discharge or commencement during 1995

  England and Wales

  Percentage reconvicted

  All males and females Age at discharge or commencement

  Sentence type

  Under 21

  21–24

  25–29

  30 and over

  Total

  Probation

  73

  64

  58

  45

  59

  Community Service

  68

  57

  48

  34

  52

  Combination order

  76

  66

  60

  39

  60

  All community penalties

  71

  61

  55

  40

  56

  Immediate custody

  77

  67

  57

  39

  58

  1 The number reconvicted includes only those reconvicted for standard list offence.

  2 Community penalty figures relate to the first quarter of 1995.

  430W

  Table 2: All offenders reconvicted1, by number of previous court appearances, within two years of discharge or commencement of a community penalty2 during 1995

  England and Wales

  Percentage reconvicted

  All males and females Number of previous convictions3

  Sentence type

  None

  1 or 2

  3–6

  7–10

  11 or more

  Total

  Probation

  31

  49

  60

  69

  77

  59

  Community Service

  30

  46

  60

  68

  73

  52

  Combination order

  39

  52

  65

  71

  73

  60

  All community penalties

  31

  48

  61

  68

  76

  56

  Immediate custody

  18

  41

  59

  69

  78

  58

  1 The number reconvicted includes only those reconvicted for standard list offence.

  2 Community penalty figures relate to the first quarter of 1995.

  3 Appearances at court that led to a conviction for standard list offences before the commencement or discharge date, excluding the last conviction before commencement or discharge if no conviction is recorded on the day of commencement or discharge date-this would normally be the number of previous convictions prior to the sentencing date.

  Jill Dando
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recent progress of the police investigation into the murder of Jill Dando. [107257]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The investigation of crime within the Metropolitan Police District is an operational matter for the Commissioner. He informs me that the investigation into the murder of Jill Dando is continuing.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of police officers as at 1 January in each of the last five years in each police division in London(a) for each area, (b) for each borough and (c) in total. [107152]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 457W.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in each London borough per 10,000 of population as measured in the 1991 Census, on 1 January in each of the last five years. [107174]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Figures provided by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police are shown in the following table:

  Numbers of locally based police officers per 10,000 of population

  London borough

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Kensington and Chelsea

  42.5

  41.6

  44.2

  41.9

  39.3

  Westminster

  95.9

  91.3

  90.6

  90.4

  86.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  34.9

  34.1

  35.9

  34.7

  33.2

  Camden

  38.7

  38.5

  37.5

  38.3

  36.6

  Islington

  32.7

  32.4

  32.8

  31.7

  30.5

  Harrow

  13.4

  14.4

  13.9

  14.2

  13.8

  431W

  Numbers of locally based police officers per 10,000 of population

  London borough

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Brent

  26.2

  24.8

  25.7

  24.7

  23.9

  Barnet

  26.4

  25.1

  24.5

  23.5

  21.8

  Ealing

  22.8

  23.4

  22.9

  22.2

  21.1

  Haringey

  27.4

  25.7

  25.3

  24.9

  24.5

  Hillingdon

  18.6

  18.5

  17.7

  16.8

  16.7

  Hackney

  36.9

  35.1

  36.0

  36.0

  35.5

  Tower Hamlets

  37.7

  36.5

  35.5

  33.8

  33.4

  Redbridge

  24.0

  23.6

  23.9

  21.5

  21.3

  Waltham Forest

  22.4

  21.3

  21.9

  21.3

  21.2

  Havering

  16.2

  15.6

  15.1

  14.4

  14.0

  Barking

  20.8

  20.7

  20.5

  20.5

  19.1

  Newham

  28.2

  28.3

  28.3

  26.7

  26.3

  Enfield

  20.7

  20.7

  21.0

  20.9

  20.7

  Southwark

  38.4

  39.7

  38.7

  37.9

  38.6

  Lewisham

  24.8

  26.7

  26.0

  25.3

  24.7

  Bromley

  17.0

  16.6

  16.0

  15.7

  15.0

  Greenwich

  26.8

  29.2

  29.2

  28.6

  27.9

  Bexley

  13.0

  13.5

  13.1

  12.9

  12.5

  Croydon

  19.5

  19.9

  19.6

  18.8

  18.5

  Lambeth

  39.1

  37.8

  37.7

  35.7

  34.9

  Hounslow

  22.3

  23.2

  22.5

  21.8

  20.9

  Richmond

  18.1

  19.5

  18.0

  17.2

  16.3

  Kingston

  27.1

  28.6

  26.3

  26.7

  24.0

  Merton

  20.6

  19.5

  18.9

  17.0

  17.2

  Wandsworth

  24.4

  24.1

  25.0

  22.5

  21.7

  Note:

  These numbers exclude officers deployed on non-local duties, e.g. on Areas or specialist Units.

  Electronic Tracking
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many early release prisoners have been fitted with an electronic tracking device; and how many have been given permission to breach the evening curfew restrictions. [107169]

  Mr. Boateng
  Up to midnight on 26 January, a total of 16,242 offenders had been placed on Home Detention Curfew since the commencement of the scheme on 28 January 1999.

  The electronic monitoring service is provided by private sector contractors operating to strict Home Office guidelines. The contractors may grant "one-off' absences in specified circumstances, which must be capable of being verified and documented. The circumstances are clearly laid out in their contract and are currently as follows:
  Circumstances in which emergency medical treatment for the curfewee or his/her immediate dependants is required;
  An irregular or unexpected medical appointment for the offender or his/her immediate dependants;
  A requirement, as part of the curfewee's permanent employment, to work at short notice, and where there would be insufficient time to contact the prison governor. The contractor is required to receive written verification from the employer that the work was required and took place;
  Any absence caused by the curfewee being detained in police custody;
  Attending the marriage or funeral of a close relative;
  Attendance at a job interview, job club or benefit office, or elsewhere to "sign on" in connection with any claims for financial assistance; and
  Attendance at court as a witness or as a defendant.

  Other than in the event of these "one-off' absences, contractors have no discretion to grant permission to be absent from the place of curfew during the specified curfew period.
  432W
  Information about the number of cases in which contractors have agreed to a "one-off' absence is not held centrally.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106236]

  Mr. Straw
  Official records compiled under the Government scheme for reporting Information Technology (IT) security incidents show the following attempts were made to gain unauthorised access to the Department's systems over the past five years:

  Insiders

  Outsiders

  1995

  0

  0

  1996

  1

  1

  1997

  1

  0

  1998

  0

  0

  1999

  1

  1

  None of these attempts resulted in any damage to the integrity of IT systems.

  Police (Hearing Impairment)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 December 1999,Official Report, column 273W, concerning hearing impairment of police officers, (a) how many Metropolitan Police officers in the last two years have received negligence compensation payments due to developing a hearing loss or tinnitus as a result of their work duties and (b) what is the total amount that the Metropolitan Police Force have paid out in the last two years in compensation payments to police officers who have developed a hearing loss or tinnitus as a result of their duties. [107302]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District tells me that details of the number of negligence compensation payments or the amounts paid to officers who have developed a hearing loss or tinnitus as a result of their duties are held on individual case files, but are not aggregated in the form requested.

  Departmental Consultation
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public consultation exercises on policy matters carried out by his Department and its agencies in each of the last five years; who was consulted and by what means; how responses were analysed; how and in what form the results were transmitted to those responsible for the consultation; how the results of the consultation were published; and what analysis has been carried out of the extent and nature of policy changes resulting from the consultation. [106298]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is not available centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  433W
  Since May 1997, the Home Office has, however, consulted on a wide range of issues. The Government welcome the views of the public on proposed new policies and initiatives and is committed to consulting through a variety of means, including Consultation Documents, Green Papers and documents published on the internet. Consultation Papers have included papers on: Tackling delays in the youth justice system (1997); Racial violence and harassment (1997); Supporting families (1998); Juries in serious fraud trials (1998); New measures to control prostitutes' cards in phone boxes (1999); and Possible changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (1999).

  Between 1995 and May 1997, the Consultation Papers published by the Home Office included papers on: Identity Cards (1995); Proposed changes to betting licensing (1995); Casino deregulation (1996); and, Clarification of the law relating to the bribery of Members of Parliament (1996).

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to ensure that women sentenced to prison terms are allowed time to put their families' affairs in order before their sentences begin. [106187]

  Mr. Boateng
  Section 1 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 enables a court to defer passing sentence on an offender only to enable it to have regard to the offender's conduct after conviction or to any change in circumstances. There is no power to defer sentence to enable people to arrange child care, and such a change would require primary legislation.

  Where a custodial sentence is likely to be imposed, National Standards require the writers of pre-sentence reports to identify any expected adverse effects for offenders and their family, including the issue of child care where appropriate.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to remodel under-used open prison facilities for the use of women prisoners and their children. [106186]

  Mr. Boateng
  In September 1997 the Director General of the Prison Service announced a review of five open prisons. The review was initiated against a background of a rising prisoner population which indicated the need to provide more spaces in secure accommodation, in particular the creation of more female places.

  The review is specifically required to consider the feasibility of re-roling Morton Hall male open prison to a closed female prison, and upgrading the security of Drake Hall open female prison to that of a closed female prison. The review is also looking at Kirkham, North Sea Camp and Standford Hill. All three establishments are currently open prisons for adult males. The work of the review team will not conclude until the spring and no decisions in respect of the open estate are expected before then.

  The provision of mother and baby units is being considered in plans for any new prison for women.

  Prosecution (Facilitators)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the Immigration and Nationality Directorate prepared for the prosecution of facilitators in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 to date. [107781]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since April 1999, the Immigration Service has prepared 180 cases against facilitators and passed them to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration of prosecution. Information of this type was not recorded centrally prior to that date.

  Nationality Decisions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nationality decisions have been taken since 31 March 1999. [107778]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of decisions taken in nationality cases in the period April to December 1999 was 44,100.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers have been removed during the financial year 1999–2000 to date by(a) the Immigration Service Ports Directorate and (b) the Immigration Service Enforcement Directorate. [107779]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information available concerning the number of asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom during the financial year commencing 1 April 1999 and up to 31 December 1999 is shown in the table.

  Port asylum removals1, 2, 3,.

  Enforcement asylum removals1,.2,.3,

  1 April 1999 to

  3,760

  1,990

  31 December 1999

  1 Including voluntary departures

  2 Excluding dependants

  3 Figures are provisional and rounded to 10

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current unit cost of supporting asylum seekers. [107772]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is not possible to provide a single answer to this question. Asylum seekers who claim asylum at their port of entry may be eligible for social security benefits. This will include housing benefit which will be set at broadly the average rent for the area concerned. Asylum seekers who do not make their application at their port of entry may, if they would otherwise be destitute, be supported by local authorities. Local authorities are able to reclaim grant from central Government subject to a maximum of £140 per week for single adults and £240 per week for families.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average cost to public funds of an asylum seeker resident(a) in a detention centre and (b) in the community. [107836]
  435W
  Mrs. Roche
  The unit cost of accommodating a single asylum seeker in a detention centre is currently £1,300 per week. It is not possible to give an average cost for accommodating an asylum seeker in the community. Currently, asylum seekers may be supported in one of two ways. Those who are port applicants are eligible for income support and housing benefit. Those who are in-country applicants may, if they would otherwise be destitute, be supported by local authorities. The Home Office will make grant available to enable local authorities to reclaim the costs of supporting asylum seekers. For this financial year reimbursement of £140 per week per single adult will be available.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the average cost to public funds of supporting an asylum seeker under the voucher scheme to be introduced on 1 April; and what is the current average cost of supporting an asylum seeker who is(a) in receipt of social security benefits and (b) in receipt of support under the interim scheme. [107835]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information is not available in the form requested. Single adult asylum seekers who are eligible for social security benefits currently receive income support set at 90 per cent. of the equivalent income support level. They are also eligible for housing benefit which is broadly set at the average rent for the area in question.

  Asylum seekers who are being supported under the interim scheme are supported by local authorities. We do not yet have information from local authorities on the costs they are incurring in this financial year. But local authorities are able to reclaim grant from central government at the rate of £140 per week for single adults and £240 per week for families.

  The National Asylum Support Service will be operating to similar unit cost targets.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate now of the number of additional staff which his Department will need to complement and administer the voucher support scheme and the accommodation scheme for asylum seekers, which are due to be introduced on 1 April. [107833]

  Mrs. Roche
  It is envisaged that the new National Asylum Support Service (which will be located within the Home Office), will have 512 full-time equivalent staff.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the start-up costs and the annual running costs of administering(a) the voucher support scheme and (b) the accommodation scheme due to be introduced on 1 April. [107834]

  Mrs. Roche
  As I announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth), of 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 452W, a contract has been awarded to Sodexho Pass International to administer the voucher scheme. The administrative costs associated with the running of this scheme are commercially confidential. No contracts have yet been awarded to accommodation providers.

  Immigration
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish an updated version of the figures provided in the Annex to the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer" showing in respect of each indicator(a) the actual out-turn for 1998–99 and (b) the projected out-turn for 1999–00. [107780]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is in the table:

  Actual Out-turn 1998–99

  Projected Out-turn 1999–2000

  Immigration and Nationality

  Directorate Budget

  £209m

  1c.£800m

  Passengers arriving

  85m

  89.1m

  Asylum decisions

  27,000

  2c.38.000

  After Entry Decisions

  180,000

  200,000

  Removals of failed Asylum Seekers

  7,070

  8,400

  Nationality Decisions

  58,300

  60,000

  Cost of Immigration Appellate Authority

  £14m

  £16.7m

  Appeals disposals

  339,700

  322,100

  Cost of Entry Clearance Operation

  £67.6m

  4—

  Visa/Entry Clearance Applications

  1.5m (1998)

  4—

  Asylum Seekers Support

  £470m

  5—

  11999–2000 budget includes estimated asylum support costs and costs of administration of support. Asylum support costs depend on numbers of new asylum claims and other variables.

  2 About 250 new asylum decision makers will complete training by March 2000 and will substantially increase the numbers of decisions made each week, but it is not possible to estimate output precisely.

  3 Adjudicator appeals only

  4Not available

  5 Included above

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many after-entry, non-asylum decisions have been taken since 31 March 1999. [107776]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of after-entry non-asylum decisions, excluding those in respect of European Economic Area cases, taken in the period April to December 1999 was 174,000. This included cases dealt with by the Public Caller Unit which did not involve a decision such as return of passports, and the transfer of conditions from old to a new passport.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 31 March 1999 non-EEA passengers have had to wait for more than 30 minutes at Immigration control. [107768]

  Mrs. Roche
  Between 1 April 1999 and 31 December 1999, there were 2,148 occasions when non-European Economic Area passengers had to wait for more than 30 minutes at the Immigration control.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-asylum offenders have been removed since 31 March 1999. [107775]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of non-asylum immigration offenders removed from the United Kingdom between 1 April 1999 and 31 December 1999 was 2,800. This figure is provisional.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the unit cost of after-entry asylum, nationality and enforcement casework in
  437W
  (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) currently; and if he will express these figures in both cash and real terms. [107765]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is in the table:

  Unit cost of casework

  £

  After entry

  Asylum

  Nationality

  Enforcement (illegal entry)

  (a) 1997–98

  Cash

  51.62

  368.73

  61.86

  670.27

  Real terms

  54.24

  387.40

  65.00

  704.20

  (b) 1998–99

  Cash

  55.49

  396.36

  66.50

  720.49

  Real terms

  56.88

  406.27

  68.16

  738.51

  (c) 1999–2000

  Cash/real terms

  53.70

  383.58

  64.36

  697.26

  The unit costs of the different types of case have been derived by applying weightings to the basic unit cost of weighted output. As such they are an approximation. The unit costs exclude some overheads and also any productivity-related payments that may be due to Siemens Business Services, Immigration and Nationality Directorate's Private Finance Initiative partner. Unit costs have been stated in cash terms and at 1999–2000 prices.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the unit cost of immigration port checks in both cash and real terms in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) currently. [107766]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 is set out in the table. Comparative figures are not available for 1997–98.

  £

  Real terms

  Cash terms

  1998–99

  Comparative baseline

  5.68

  5.68

  1999–2000

  Target (Home Office Business Plan)

  5.43

  5.55

  Latest forecast

  5.27

  5.39

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what percentage of detailed non-asylum immigration examinations have culminated in refusal during the financial year 1997–2000; [107769]

  (2) what percentage of non-asylum immigration referrals have culminated in refusals in the financial year 1999–2000 to date; [107770]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information relates to the percentage of detailed examinations in non-asylum cases carried out at ports which resulted in the passenger being refused leave to enter. This was 63 per cent. over the period April to December 1999.
  438W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of appealed immigration and asylum decisions have been upheld by the appeal authorities during the financial year 1999–2000 to date. [107771]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is given in the table.

  Outcome of Adjudicator and Tribunal appeals1

  Percentage

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Adjudicator appeals2

  22

  74

  4

  Tribunal (appeal lodged by the appellant)3

  12

  61

  27

  Tribunal (appeal lodged by the Secretary of State)3

  34

  65

  1

  1 Provisional figures

  2 Covers the period October to December 1999

  3 Covers the period November to December 1999

  Enforcement Removal Costs
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his target for the unit cost of an enforcement removal; and what is the current actual unit cost. [107773]

  Mrs. Roche
  A target for the unit cost of an enforcement removal has not yet been established. However, work is continuing to enable actual costs to be ascertained.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many projects has the Immigration and Nationality Directorate initiated against organised crime during 1999–2000 to date; and what proportion of all such projects commenced by the Directorate are now being completed within 12 months. [107782]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration Service is currently conducting 27 projects against organised crime, six of which have been initiated since April 1999. It is anticipated that 40 per cent. of all such projects will reach conclusion within 12 months.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of marriage abuse, unscrupulous representatives or illegal employment the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has prepared for prosecution so far during 1999–2000. [107774]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since April 1999, the Immigration Service has prepared 229 cases for possible prosecution and passed them to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration. Of the total, 180 cases were prepared against facilitators and 49 involved other forms of abuse of the immigration law. Information is not held centrally that would enable us to break down these figures further.

  Airline Liaison Officers
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many airline liaison officers are now in post. [107767]
  439W
  Mrs. Roche
  On 31 January, a total of 18 airline liaison officers were in post. By March we anticipate that the network will have expanded to a total of 20 posts.

  Enforcement Operations
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many major and medium enforcement operations the Immigration and Nationality Directorate has initiated so far during the year 1999–2000. [107764]

  Mrs. Roche
  Since April 1999, 17 upper tier and 55 middle tier operations have been carried out by the Immigration Service. (Major and medium enforcement operations are now referred to as upper and middle tier operations).

  Citizenship (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average waiting time for a decision on an application for British citizenship. [107777]

  Mrs. Roche
  The average waiting time for applications decided in December 1999 was 19 months.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance his Department offers to applicants for driving licences whose identification documents are(a) held by or (b) have not been issued by Immigration and Nationality Department; and if he will make a statement. [106681]

  Mrs. Roche
  Where a request is made for the return of an applicant's identity documents for identification purposes, including applying for a driving licence, arrangements are made to return the documents as soon as possible, usually within five working days.

  Asylum seekers who have no formal immigration status here and require their identity documents, for example, for obtaining a driving licence from the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA), have hitherto been asked to send them back within 48 hours. However, as the DVLA are unable to process their applications within this timescale, this requirement has now been relaxed.

  Where asylum seekers have no identity documents they are issued with a Standard Acknowledgement Letter (SAL) which confirms that an asylum application has been made and bears the holder's photograph. However, this document is only an acknowledgement that they have an outstanding asylum claim. We understand that the DVLA do not accept this document as a proof of identity but we are not able to issue any form of identity documents unless and until the asylum application has been favourably determined.

  Mike Tyson
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account he took of the impact on BSkyB in making his decision on whether to allow Mr. Mike Tyson into the UK. [106652]
  440W
  Mr. Straw
  In reaching my decision to admit Mr. Tyson one of the factors which weighed most heavily with me was the lack of consistency in the application of this Immigration Rule, as well as the likely effect of cancellation of the fight on those who had already purchased tickets and smaller enterprises and individuals who were probably least able to beat any losses. The situation of the latter had been drawn to my attention in the representations submitted by Mr. Frank Warren, the promoter of the event, who also referred to the investment in the promotion by television networks including "Showtime" in the United States of America and "BSkyB" in this country. Although I considered these factors I did not regard them as relevant to the decision I took.

TREASURY

  Rural Banking Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the impact on rural communities of the change in the number of rural branches of banks in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [107250]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The recent Treasury Policy Action Team (PAT 14) report on "Access to Financial Services" found that the relationship between bank branch closures and financial exclusion is far from straightforward. The general theme of the report is that tackling financial exclusion requires the development of new products and new ways to access them. Different techniques may suit different circumstances. These may help financially excluded people across the whole community, not just in deprived neighbourhoods.

  Cancer Statistics
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) number and (b) percentage of the population suffered the most prevalent forms of cancer in (i) 1970 and (ii) 1998, indicating the proportion of each group who were likely to make a recovery in each of those years. [107487]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Maclean, dated 31 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the number and percentage of the population suffering from prevalent forms of cancer.
  The number and rate of new cases of cancer registered in 1971 and 1996 are given in the table for the major forms of cancer (those with more than 1,000 cases). These years are the earliest and latest dates for which national data are available for cases diagnosed in England and Wales. Figures are not available on patients recovering. However, figures are available on five-year relative survival. The table provides data for patients diagnosed in 1971–75 and 1986–90 in England and Wales.
  441W

  New cases of cancer, major sites by sex, 1971 and 1996 (provisional estimates) and five-year relative survival for patients diagnosed in 1971–75 and 1986–90, England and Wales

  1971

  1996

  Site

  Number1

  Rate per 100,0002

  Five-year survival (%) 1971–75

  Number1

  Rate per 100,0002

  Five-year survival (%)1986–90

  Males

  Bladder

  5,359

  23.6

  44

  8,510

  29.5

  62

  Brain

  1,360

  5.8

  7

  1,910

  7.3

  13

  Colon

  5,158

  23.3

  22

  8,850

  30.8

  38

  Kidney

  1,334

  5.8

  28

  3,060

  11.1

  38

  Larynx

  1,289

  5.5

  57

  1,550

  5.7

  63

  Leukaemias

  2,114

  9.2

  12

  2,860

  10.3

  24

  Lung

  25,601

  108.3

  4

  22,300

  77.2

  5

  Malignant melanoma

  372

  1.7

  46

  1,850

  6.9

  68

  Multiple myeloma

  669

  2.9

  10

  1,550

  5.4

  17

  Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma3

  1,190

  5.2

  27

  3,870

  14.6

  41

  Oesophagus

  1,727

  7.7

  3

  3,540

  12.6

  5

  Pancreas

  2,649

  11.7

  2

  2,780

  9.8

  2

  Prostate

  6,174

  29.0

  31

  18,900

  63.5

  41

  Rectum

  4,462

  19.8

  25

  6,180

  22.0

  36

  Stomach

  7,301

  31.9

  4

  5,910

  20.4

  9

  Testis

  649

  2.8

  69

  1,490

  5.5

  90

  Females

  Bladder

  1,890

  5.7

  42

  3,320

  8.1

  57

  Brain

  989

  3.8

  9

  1,560

  5.2

  15

  Breast

  18,758

  66.9

  52

  31,200

  101.4

  66

  Cervix

  4,089

  15.9

  52

  2,600

  8.9

  61

  Colon

  7,160

  21.9

  23

  9,830

  24.0

  39

  Kidney

  876

  2.9

  28

  1,860

  5.4

  35

  Leukaemias

  1,653

  5.5

  13

  2,490

  6.9

  26

  Lung

  5,743

  19.1

  4

  12,700

  35.1

  5

  Malignant melanoma

  783

  3.1

  65

  2,540

  8.4

  82

  Multiple myeloma

  672

  2.1

  11

  1,350

  3.4

  19

  Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma3

  1,043

  3.5

  31

  3,294

  9.8

  45

  Oesophagus

  1,406

  4.2

  5

  2,510

  5.9

  8

  Ovary

  4,093

  14.5

  21

  5,720

  18.0

  28

  Pancreas

  2,314

  6.9

  2

  3,190

  7.7

  2

  Rectum

  3,616

  11.1

  27

  4,610

  12.2

  39

  Stomach

  5,180

  15.1

  5

  3,220

  7.4

  11

  Uterus

  3,462

  11.8

  61

  4,000

  12.4

  70

  1 Number of newly diagnosed cases.

  2 Directly age-standardised to the European standard population.

  3 Latest available data for Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are for 1994.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claimant-count unemployed people left the UK workforce in order to secure work in other countries during the most recent year for which figures are available. [107231]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 31 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the number of claimant-count unemployed people who left the UK workforce in order to secure work in other countries.
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the most recent figures for the total number of people in employment and self-employment, as a proportion of the working age population, in(a) England, (b) Northern Ireland, (c) Scotland and (d) Wales. [107227]
  442W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 31 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on proportions of working age people in employment.
  The latest available estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), the main source of labour market data on individuals, for September to November 1999 are: England 75.0 per cent., Wales 69.4 per cent., Scotland 71.8 per cent. These estimates are seasonally adjusted. The available estimate for Northern Ireland is 67.0 per cent. (not seasonally adjusted). These estimates appear in the Labour Market Statistics First Release issued on 19 January.
  Employment rates express the total in employment as a percentage of all of working age, in each country. Working age is defined as men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59.
  People aged 16 or over are classed as in employment by the LFS if they have done at least one hour of paid work (as an employee or self-employed) in the week prior to their LFS interview or if they have a job from which they are temporarily away. People who do unpaid work in a family business and people on Government-supported training and employment programmes are also included according to the International Labour Organisation convention.

  Unemployment Statistics (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each year since 1979 to date, the number of(a) long-term unemployed, (b) young unemployed and (c) total unemployed in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [107258]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 31 January 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the number of unemployed in Shrewsbury and Atcham.
  The ONS publishes a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  The information requested can be obtained from the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library.
  Information on the claimant count by parliamentary constituency is available monthly from June 1983. Information on the claimant count by age and duration for computerised claims only is available monthly from June 1985. Both are on the unadjusted basis only.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on drug prevention measures of the proposed reduction of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise cover in the South West; and if he will make a statement. [107544]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs are carrying out a review to ensure that we are making the best use of our resources to target the highest priorities and risks. This work has not yet been completed and no decisions have been made.

  VAT
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which disability products and services are exempt from VAT. [107515]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There is a specific VAT exemption for welfare services and associated goods supplied other than for profit to disabled people by charities and public bodies.

  In addition there is a wide range of VAT zero-rates for goods and services supplied to disabled people. VAT Notice 701/7 "VAT reliefs for people with disabilities" contains details and is available from the Library.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106225]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There was one instance of unauthorised external use of a mail gateway in October 1999, but there have been no recorded instances of illegal access to Treasury computer systems at any other time.
  444W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips and (b) theft his Department has recorded in the last five years. [106221]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There has been one instance of unauthorised external use of an email gateway (in October 1999), but there are no further recorded instances of fraudulent use of Treasury systems in any of the last five years.

  There have been some cases of thefts of computer equipment as follows:

  Year

  Amount

  1995

  3

  1996

  6

  1997

  9

  1998

  1

  1999

  4

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to alter the operation of the Barnett Formula to recognise the increased needs for public expenditure in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. [107068]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government's policy is set out in the White Paper, "A Voice for Wales", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  VAT (House Repairs and Refurbishment)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the level of a uniform rate of VAT on development on previously underdeveloped sites and on house repair and refurbishment which would generate the same level of VAT income as the present VAT regime. [107278]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Based on existing pattern of activity in new build, repairs and refurbishment, a uniform 10 per cent. VAT rate on development of previously undeveloped sites and on house repair and refurbishment would generate approximately the same level of VAT income as the present VAT regime.

  Alcohol and Tobacco
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the current(a) extent and (b) loss to the Exchequer as a result of (i) tobacco smuggling and (ii) alcohol smuggling. [107496]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 26 November 1999,Official Report, columns 254–55W.

  Liquid Petroleum Gas
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the fuel price escalator on those households whose principal fuel is liquid petroleum gas. [107355]
  445W
  Mr. Timms
  No such assessment is needed. Liquid petroleum gas used for domestic purposes is not subject to any excise duty.

  Salary Payments (28-day Month)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what data he has collated on the number of individuals who are paid on a 28 day month basis; and what assessment he has made of their income tax liability in those years when they receive 14 payments? [R] [107532]

  (2) what representations he has received from taxpayers who may receive 14 monthly pay packets in a particular year. [R] [107501]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The interval at which employees are paid is a matter for businesses to decide. No one pays more tax on their earnings than is due in law as a result of having an extra pay day in a year.

  Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of death certificates issued in Wales in each of the past 10 years that mentioned(a) heroin, (b) methadone, (c) ecstasy, (d) paracetamol and (e) alcohol. [106189]

  Table [1]: Drug-related deaths1 for usual residents of Wales, 1993–97

  Year

  Heroin and Diamorphine

  Heroin and Morphine2

  MDMA/Ecstasy

  Paracetamol3

  Methadone

  1993

  2

  4

  0

  15

  5

  1994

  2

  7

  2

  19

  9

  1995

  1

  14

  0

  39

  19

  1996

  5

  13

  2

  21

  19

  1997

  5

  12

  1

  32

  21

  1Deaths with underlying cause codes 292, 304, 305.2–305.9, E850-E858, E950.0-E950.5, E962.0 and E980.0-E980.5 using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, where the named substance was mentioned on the death certificate.

  2 Combined figures are presented for heroin and morphine as the latter may be detected at post-mortem following the breakdown of heroin in the body.

  3 Includes deaths where paracetamol or any compounds containing paracetamol, such as co-proxamol, are mentioned on the death certificate.

  Table [2]: Alcohol-related deaths1 for usual residents of Wales, 1989–98

  Year

  Number

  1998

  305

  1997

  295

  1996

  294

  1995

  289

  1994

  244

  1993

  240

  1992

  213

  1991

  233

  1990

  234

  1989

  201

  1 Underlying cause of death codes 303, 305.0, 291, 425.5, 571 and N980, using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision.

  Endowment Policies Mis-selling
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the mis-selling of endowment policies; what remedies are available to holders of endowment policies which do not realise sufficient capital on maturity to meet the mortgage repayment commitment; and if he will make a statement. [107128]
  446W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 31 January 2000
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking what was the total number of death certificates issued in Wales in each of the past 10 years that mentioned (a) heroin, (b) methadone, (c) ecstasy, (d) paracetamol and (e) alcohol.
  Information is available for usual residents of Wales, rather than for deaths occurring in Wales.
  The information requested in parts (a) to (d) of the question can only be supplied from 1993 onwards when text from the death certificate was first stored electronically. This enables named drugs to be identified. The ONS has constructed a database of deaths where the underlying cause of death was drug-related. Table [1] shows the numbers of deaths on this database where the substances named in (a) to (d) were mentioned on the death certificate. Some deaths may be counted more than once, for example if heroin and methadone are both recorded on the death certificate.
  It is not possible to identify all deaths with a mention of alcohol from the ONS drug-related database. The ONS does, however, have a standard list of underlying causes of death regarded as being attributable to alcohol and alcohol-related illness. Figures for these deaths are presented in Table [2].

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The advice and selling of endowment policies is fully regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). On 21 December, FSA announced the conclusions of recent work on endowments. FSA concluded that on average holders of mortgage endowments have enjoyed returns which mean they have fared at least as well as they would have done with a repayment mortgage, and that there were no grounds for an industry-wide review of all past business. However, targeted visits to product provider and independent financial adviser firms show current selling practices to be poor. As part of its normal regulatory activities, the FSA will make follow-up visits to check for marked improvements in sales practices by the end of 2000. The FSA will not hesitate to take disciplinary action where appropriate if standards remain poor.

  For investment business, including the sale of endowment policies, a redress mechanism has been established under the Financial Services Act 1986. Advisers and sellers of financial products, including endowment policies, are obliged to follow rules established under the Act which are designed to protect the financial interests of investors. The rules focus on giving best advice and assessing the suitability of proposed products to the investor's circumstances. An

  447W
  endowment policy holder with a loss resulting from non-compliance with these rules can complain to the firm involved. If the firm cannot settle the complaint, the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman has the power to require firms to pay compensation in appropriate cases.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC School Visits
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidelines are given to the police on the carrying of weapons on visits to school premises. [105456]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]Police officers agree with the school whether or not officers visit in civilian dress or police uniform. During this visit, officers are advised not to overtly wear firearms.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals are being considered by his Department to help sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub-post offices. [105856]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson) on Thursday 20 January 2000,Official Report, columns 519–20W.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of the Parades Commission in each year since its establishment and in the current year to the latest available date; and under which principal headings expenditure has been incurred. [106106]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]The total cost of the Parades Commission in the financial year 1997–98 was £613,000, and in 1998–99, the Commission's first full year, the total cost was £1.066 million, (in response to a question from Mr. Ross in September 1999 the total for 1998–99 was given as £1.064 million. This figure was incorrect and was due to rounding of figures presented in a different manner in the Annual Report.) The expenditure to December 1999, the last date available, was £697,000. The expenditure was broken down in the following categories: Pay; General Administrative Expenditure; Inter-Departmental Charges; Programme Expenditure; and Capital Expenditure.

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Pay

  124,000

  208,000

  185,000

  GAE

  57,000

  62,000

  39,000

  IDCs

  —

  34,000

  35,000

  Program

  410,000

  760,000

  432,000

  Capital

  22,000

  2,000

  6,000

  Total

  613,000

  1,066,000

  697,000

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips and (b) theft his Department has recorded in the last five years. [106215]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no recorded incidents of fraud in the Department. On two occasions a theft of a laptop was reported.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106231]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been no known incidents of illegal accesses by computer hackers of NIO systems within or from outside the Department.

  TransTec
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the Government grants or loans received by TransTec plc or its subsidiaries for use in Northern Ireland since 1991. [107633]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Responsibility for this matter has been devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and is therefore no longer a matter for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Northern Ireland Police Authority
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the occasions on which vehicles which were being used officially by executive or non-executive members of the Northern Ireland Police Authority were involved in road collisions or otherwise damaged in the past three years; and in each case if he will give(a) the circumstances in which the damage occurred, (b) who was determined to be legally responsible and (c) who paid for the damage. [103568]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]Executive members of the Police Authority involved in a road traffic accident are required to report any damage to police fleet vehicles in accordance with internal standing orders. The Authority has no knowledge of any damage to police fleet vehicles being recorded in the past three years.

  The Police Authority has no knowledge of any member of the Authority driving or being required to drive a police vehicle, officially or otherwise during the past three years.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which executive and non-executive members of the Northern Ireland Police Authority have held authorised fuel charge cards at any time in the past three years; and, in each case, how much has been charged to each card. [103567]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 20 December 1999]Over the last three years a total of six fuel charge cards have been used within the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. These charge cards have not been issued to individual Executive or Non-Executive members of the
  449W
  Authority, but rather have been issued to two functional branches within the Authority's Transport Services Division.

  During the period February 1997 to November 1999, 3,525 litres of fuel have been charged to the six fuel cards.

HEALTH

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of members of the NHS pension scheme had qualifying survivor partners on their death in each of the last five years, broken down by members who died in service, members who died during deferral, and pensioner members. [104269]

  Mr. Denham
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 31 January 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question regarding the proportion of members of the NHS Pension Scheme who had qualifying survivor partners on their death as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  The NHS Pension Scheme only pays survivor benefits to legal spouses or dependant children. Widower's benefits were only generally available from 6 April 1988.
  Unfortunately the Agency's current systems do not allow me to provide the proportion of members who died in service, or during deferral, and had qualifying partners on their death.

  The information in respect of pensioner members is as follows:

  Year

  Proportion of pensioner members with qualifying survivor partners on their death (%)

  1995

  30

  1996

  30

  1997

  29

  1998

  28

  1999

  27

  The Government Actuary's last report, covering the period from 1989–1994, assumed an average 50% of pensioner members would have qualifying partner survivors.
  The difference between the actuarial assumption and the experience over the last 5 years is due to the high proportion of women represented in the number of pensioner deaths whose husbands pre-deceased them or were not entitled to widower's pensions.

  Neurology Treatment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to recruit more neurologists and neurology specialist nurses; and if he will make a statement. [104580]

  Mr. Denham
  At local level, it is for National Health Service trusts and health authorities, who are accountable for the quality of the services they provide, to determine how their services are configured and delivered, in the 450W
  light of local circumstances, in order to provide quality services to patients. This includes deciding on the number and grades of posts in neurology in their locality.

  Extra money has been made available to enable the NHS to take on up to 7,000 doctors and 15,000 more nurses by March 2002. The precise increases between specialties in the Hospital and Community Health Services and the General Medical Services will depend on the recruitment choices of NHS trusts and health authorities locally.

  From the Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce on 30 September 1998, there were around 300 consultants in neurology. Currently, there are sufficient higher specialist trainees in the speciality for there to be around 100 extra qualifying for consultant posts by 2006.

  Health Authority Mergers
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for health authority mergers. [105507]

  Mr. Denham
  There has been only one health authority merger since May 1997 when North West Anglia, East Norfolk and Cambridge and Huntingdon Health Authorities merged to become Norfolk and Cambridge Health Authorities on 1 April 1999.

  There are no current plans for further health authority mergers, and any future proposals will be subject to full local consultation and will be based on the needs of the NHS and its patients. We will need to have clear evidence that any plans will deliver real health, service and clinical benefits.

  Thalassaemia
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to raise awareness amongst health professionals of sickle cell and thalassaemia; and what training health professionals receive on this subject. [106196]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department is considering a proposal from the Haemoglobinopathy Societies to launch a campaign to raise awareness of sickle cell and thalassaemia, principally among black and minority ethnic groups.

  Responsibility for the content and standards of medical education is shared between the regulatory bodies (e.g. The General Medical Council and Specialist Training Authority), professional bodies (notably the medical Royal Colleges) and universities. It is neither practicable nor desirable for the Government to prescribe the exact training that any individual doctor will receive.

  All general practitioners currently receive appropriate training to help them meet the needs of their patients. A modernised system will be introduced early next year which will ensure that all new trainee general practitioners receive an educational needs assessment. This will enable a range of appropriate training to be better tailored and targeted.
  451W
  The National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting approve courses enabling registration with the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC). As part of the training programme the UKCC ensures that participants recognise common factors that adversely affect the physical, mental and social well-being of patients and take appropriate action. The English National Board approves a post-registration study programme, "The Care and Management of Adults and Children with Sickle Cell, Thalassaemia and Related Disorders (Haemoglobinopathies)" for nurses.

  Ms Oona King: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated in the NHS for sickle cell and thalassaemia in each of the last 10 years. [106199]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows the number of finished consultant episodes in National Health Service hospitals in England for the years 1989–90 to 1997–98, where the main diagnosis was Thalassaemia or Sickle Cell Disorders.

  Sickle cell disorders

  Thalassaemia

  Total

  1989–90

  3,695

  3,831

  7,527

  1990–91

  4,010

  4,018

  8,028

  1991–92

  5,408

  5,244

  10,652

  1992–93

  6,344

  6,508

  12,853

  Project name

  Start date

  Planned competition date

  Expected completion date

  Planned cost (£000)

  Estimated cost (£000)

  Computer Aided Facilities Management System

  March 1999

  October 1999

  March 2000

  98

  107

  Forms on the Departmental Intranet

  December 1998

  November 1999

  August 2000

  98

  193

  General Medical Services 99

  April 1999

  March 2000

  February 2000

  149

  128

  Management of Electronic Documents Strategy (Basic Module 1)

  February 1999

  March 2000

  March 2000

  218

  213

  Memphis on the Web

  November 1998

  July 1999

  June 2000

  60

  98

  Non-Executive Appointments System

  July 1998

  March 2000

  April 2000

  248

  291

  Computerisation of Medical Benefits System

  April 1998

  July 1999

  May 2000

  344

  348

  Personnel and Related Systems

  July 1997

  July 1998

  January 2000

  580

  725

  Regional Office Data Sharing Project

  May 1997

  April 1999

  February 2000

  160

  183

  Regional Office Historic Data Project

  December 1998

  March 2000

  June 2000

  235

  249

  Year 2000 Programme including Compliance and Business Continuity

  October 1996

  March 2000

  March 2000

  6,100

  6,200

  Foods Standards Agency (FSA) (IT Infrastructure)

  May 1998

  August 2000

  November 2000

  1,440

  1,514

  FSA (Payroll system set-up)

  September 1999

  April 2000

  April 2000

  108

  96

  FSA (Personnel System)

  September 1999

  April 2000

  April 2000

  108

  95

  FSA (Press Office System)

  September 1999

  March 2000

  March 2000

  102

  71

  FSA Financial and Research Management Systems

  November 1998

  April 2000

  April 2000

  1,134

  1,134

  Commissioning for Health Improvement

  October 1999

  April 2001

  April 2001

  1,496

  1,496

  Medical Devices Agency Integrated System for Information sharing

  January 1999

  January 2000

  March 2000

  159

  189

  National Health Service Pensions Agency five Yearly Scheme Validation Data Extract

  December 1998

  September 2000

  September 2000

  650

  200

  Medicines Control Agency (MCA) General Practice Research Database

  September 1999

  October 2000

  October 2000

  2,353

  2,353

  MCA Structured Cabling for IT/Telecoms

  January 1999

  December 1999

  March 2000

  378

  378

  Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) LabBase 2 Implementation

  October 1999

  August 2000

  August 2000

  1,200

  1,200

  PHLS CoSurv/lab-link deployment

  June 1999

  March 2000

  March 2000

  112

  112

  National Institute of Biological Standards and Control Replacement of Finance System

  January 1999

  August 1999

  January 2000

  116

  115

  452W

  Sickle cell disorders

  Thalassaemia

  Total

  1993–94

  7,256

  6,732

  13,988

  1994–95

  7,349

  6,944

  14,293

  1995–96

  8,671

  7,475

  16,146

  1996–97

  9,221

  7,680

  16,902

  1997–98

  9,270

  7,761

  17,031

  Total

  61,224

  56,193

  117,420

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics

  These figures are for in-patient activity only. They include the regular transfusion treatment of thalassaemic patients, which takes place on a day case basis. They do not reflect the number of patients receiving treatment from general practitioners or as hospital outpatients as statistics on such activity are not collected.

  Information Technology Projects
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the information technology projects that are being undertaken by his Department and agencies responsible to his Department, stating in each case(a) the start date, (b) the originally planned completion date, (c) the expected completion date, (d) the originally planned cost and (e) the estimated actual cost; and if he will make a statement. [106746]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  453W
  There are many smaller projects where the total project costs are less than £100,000. A full list of these could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in expanding NHS Direct nationwide and its extension to the Wirral. [106809]

  Ms Stuart
  The White paper "The New NHS; Modern, and Dependable" announced the Government's commitment to NHS Direct. At present, NHS Direct covers 65 per cent. of the population. By the end of October this year, the whole of England, including the Wirral, will be covered.

  Wansbeck Hospital
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current number of beds in the Wansbeck General Hospital; and what projections he has made of future bed numbers. [107155]

  Mr. Denham
  The Northumbria Healthcare National Health Service Trust has indicated that there are currently 308 beds at Wansbeck General Hospital. The trust is pursuing a private finance initiative solution to rationalise all beds at the Wansbeck General Hospital and Ashington Hospital on the Wansbeck site.

  Dual X-ray Absorptiometry
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which health authorities and primary care groups are purchasing bone density measurements by means of dual X-ray absorptiometry for particular clinical indications, as advised in NHS EL (96) 110; [107440]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the efficiency and availability of current provision of dual X-ray absorptiometry; [107441]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the average number of operating hours dual X-ray absorptiometry equipment is in use per week by providers; and what assessment he has made of the hours that they are in use for (a) research and (b) NHS purposes; [107442]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the availability of full diagnostic osteoporosis services in each health authority in England. [107443]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 28 January 2000]Information on the number of health authorities and primary care groups purchasing bone density measurements by means of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) for particular clinical indications is not held centrally.

  No central assessment has been made of the number of operating hours for DXA equipment per week or the hours they are used for research and National Health Service purposes. Neither has there been any assessment of the efficiency and availability of DXA provision or the availability of full diagnostic osteoporosis services in each health authority.
  454W
  However the Department asked the National Osteoporosis Society to conduct a survey of all units with access to DXA equipment. The results of which were published in an article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Vol.93 January 2000, copies of which are available in the Library.

  The launch of the Osteoporosis Strategy in June 1998 at the Sixth Bath Conference has provided evidence-based clinical guidelines for the treatment and prevention of osteoporosis. These should provide the basis for health authorities wishing to develop local strategies. It is however for local health authorities to decide what services to provide taking into account resources available and the needs of the local population.

  Pay Rises
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS staff will benefit from the 26 per cent. pay rise awarded to scientific staff. [107667]

  Mr. Denham
  There are an estimated 750 trainee Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers who will benefit from the 26 per cent. pay offer for 1999–2000.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the powered wheel chairs voucher scheme and the level of take-up in each year of its operation since 1996; [107516]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to extend the ring fencing of funding for the powered chairs voucher scheme for a further year; [107514]

  (3) when he will announce his conclusions in respect of the report by the York Health Economics Unit, Evaluation of the Voucher and Outdoor Wheelchair Scheme. [107517]

  Mr. Hutton
  The York Health Economics Consortium prepared an evaluation study of the implementation and operation of the National Health Service powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair scheme and the wheelchair voucher scheme. When I have completed my consideration of the recommendations contained in their report I shall announce my conclusions about the future of the two schemes.

  1,158 powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs were issued in 1996–97, 4,581 in 1997–98 and 4,033 in 1998–99. Data for the wheelchair voucher scheme are only held from 1997–98. 660 vouchers were issued in 1997–98 and 5,010 were issued in 1998–99.

  Mersey Region Health Trusts
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health trusts in the Mersey Region were in deficit in the last financial year. [107453]

  Mr. Denham
  No National Health Service trusts in the Merseyside and Cheshire area were in deficit in the last financial year, 1998–99.

  NHS Drugs Procurement
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to secure better value in NHS drugs procurement. [106190]
  455W
  Ms Stuart
  Branded medicines supplied to the National Health Service throughout the United Kingdom are covered by the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS). The PPRS includes a 4.5 per cent. reduction in the price of branded medicines from October 1999. Thereafter, the only changes permitted until 1 January 2001 are cost-neutral modulations, with strict controls on price increases after that date. The Health Act 1999 includes reserve powers to deal with companies which elect not to be scheme members or cease to be scheme members. Regulations have just been laid to ensure that the prices of medicines supplied by companies outside the voluntary scheme may be controlled, and the price reduction implemented where appropriate. At the same time the PPRS contains incentives to companies to develop new medicines, and allowances for the cost of research and development.

  Generic medicines are not covered by the PPRS. We have commissioned a fundamental review of arrangements for the supply of generic medicines to the NHS in England to examine whether existing arrangements best serve the health service and to identify possible alternatives. The conclusions of the programme of work are expected in the summer.

  The NHS Supplies Authority plays a part in the procurement of medicines for hospitals. The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency will be set up from 1 April to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of purchasing in the NHS in England.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that the NHS drugs bill will not be increased as a result of the merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham. [106188]

  Ms Stuart
  The Director General of Fair Trading will consult interested parties about the proposed merger and will advise the Department of Trade in due course. His advice will take account of any comments from this Department on issues such as any effect of the proposed merger on price and availability of medicines and competition among health service suppliers.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS expenditure in each of the past 10 years was on drugs. [106191]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Total NHS drugs bill as a percentage of total NHS expenditure

  Year

  Percentage

  1988–89

  10.8

  1989–90

  11.1

  1990–91

  10.7

  1991–92

  10.9

  1992–93

  11.2

  1993–94

  11.8

  1994–95

  12.1

  1995–96

  12.7

  1996–97

  13.3

  1997–98

  13.7

  1998–99

  13.9

  Note:

  The 1998–99 data are provisional, but unlikely to change to any significant extent.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses and (b) doctors were employed by the National Health Service (i) in May 1997 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [107856]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about numbers of nurses and doctors employed by the National Health Service is collected as at 30 September each year. Latest figures are as at 30 September 1998. The information is shown in the tables.

  NHS hospital and community health services: nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff. England as at 30 September

  1997

  1998

  Numbers (headcount)

  417,570

  421,750

  Whole-time equivalents

  330,620

  332,200

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Figures exclude agency staff and learners

  Medical staff (doctors) employed by the NHS. England as at 30 September

  1997

  1998

  Hospital doctors1

  59,860

  61,650

  Public health medicine and community health medicine

  3,410

  3,210

  All doctors

  63,270

  64,860

  1 Hospital medical staff.

  Notes:

  Figures rounded to the nearest 10

  Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Honorary Consuls
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the former honorary consuls who have served since 1990 who were British citizens, giving(a) the posts in which they served, (b) the length of time they served and (c) the honours that have been awarded to them for such service. [105894]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 20 January 2000]Information distinguishing length of time served and whether individuals are current or former Honorary British Consuls could be provided only at disproportionate cost. British nationals who have served since at least 1990 who have received honours, and with details of their awards, are as follows:

  NY90
  CBE—Arthur Everard Butler Laurence, OBE
  Cali, Columbia

  BD90
  MBE—Ronald Frankel
  Dinard, France

  NY91
  MBE—Mrs. Marie Jeanne Morphy-Karatza
  Patras, Greece

  BD91
  MBE—Frank Parton Barber
  San Pedro Sula, Honduras
  457W
  NY92
  MBE—Alexander Leonard Frank Bessey
  Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
  MBE—Roger Arthur Gough
  Belo Horizonte, Brazil
  MBE—Chasser Robertson Jessop
  Bamako, Mali
  MBE—Major Norman John Lister
  Trieste, Italy

  BD92
  MBE—George John Anthony Akras
  Aleppo, Syria
  MBE—Richard Francis Blandy
  Madeira, Portugal
  MBE—Frederick William Matheson
  Punta Arenas, Chile

  NY93
  MBE—Mrs. Glenys Helen Hulse
  Arica, Chile

  BD93
  MBE—Geoffrey Parker Knowles
  Port Elizabeth, South Africa
  MBE—John Anthony Perry
  Pointe Noire, Congo

  NY94
  MBE—Roger Harry Virnuls
  Toulouse, France

  BD 1994
  (None)

  NY95
  MBE—Kenneth Ronald Dagnall
  Le Havre, France
  MBE—Mrs. Fay Miriam Morris
  Eilat, Israel

  BD95
  OBE—Dr. Ian Court
  Puerto Rico, United States
  MBE—Frank Molesworth Hope
  Biarritz, France

  NY96
  OBE—Leslie Straughan
  Halifax, Canada
  OBE—Mrs. Maureen Tejeda, MBE
  Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
  MBE—John Christopher Shaw
  Chiangmai, Thailand

  BD96
  MBE—Simon Cohen
  Guadalajara, Mexico
  MBE—Ian Bennett Gibson
  Kiel, Germany
  MBE—Zbigniew George Podolecki
  Maracaibo, Venezuela
  MBE—Graeme Neville Robinson
  Christchurch, New Zealand

  NY97
  MBE—Christopher Rodney Baker
  Dunkirk, France
  MBE—Mrs. Valerie Treitlein
  Conakry, Guinea

  BD97
  MBE—Mrs. Sandra Lynn Darra
  Montreux, Switzerland
  458W
  NY98
  MBE—David Elliot Balfour
  Galapagos, Ecuador
  MBE—Frederick Gentle
  Brindisi, Italy
  MBE—David Harwood
  Libreville, Gabon
  MBE—John Mitchell Inglis
  Calais, France

  BD98
  MBE—Peter Gwylym, LEE
  Pointe Noire, Congo
  MBE—Joseph Reginald Willilam Roberts
  Arequipa, Peru

  NY99
  MBE—Mrs. Nancy Abeiderrahmane
  Nouakchott, Mauritania
  MBE—Stephen Burges
  Asmara, Eritrea
  MBE—Richard Trevor Robinson
  Tamale, Ghana

  BD99
  OBE—Frank Parton Barber, MBE
  San Pedro Sula, Honduras
  MBE—Gerard Barron
  Boulogne-sur-Mer, France
  MBE—Andrew Martin Graham
  Cagliari, Italy
  MBE—Christopher Avison Milne
  Surabaya, Indonesia

  Key:

  BD = [Queen's] Birthday Honours List (with last two figures of the year)

  NY = New Year Honours List (with the last two figures of the year)

  Kenya
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he plans to take to protect British citizens in Kenya from attacks by the Mungiki. [107493]

  Mr. Hain
  Our High Commission in Nairobi have been monitoring closely the activities of the Mungiki sect, but to date have no evidence of any direct threat to British citizens in Kenya. They will pass any such evidence on to the Kenyan security authorities, and our consular travel advice would be amended accordingly.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the number of Christians murdered in Pakistan under the Government of Nawaz Sharif. [107526]

  Mr. Hain
  We regularly raised our concerns about the position of Christians in Pakistan during the administration of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. There are no accurate and comprehensive statistics available about the number of Christians murdered in Pakistan during this period.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to General Musharraf about the treatment of Christians in Pakistan under the Sharia Law. [107521]
  459W
  Mr. Hain
  We have carefully noted General Musharraf s promise to Pakistan's minorities that their rights would be respected and that they would be treated as equal citizens. We have urged the Pakistani authorities to respect human rights, notably when I met Sharifuddin Pirzada, a civilian member of Pakistan's National Security Council on 8 December, and when our High Commissioner in Islamabad saw General Musharraf on 15 October and 15 November 1999.

  Christians (Persecution)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries from which he has received reports that Christians have been(a) murdered, (b) persecuted and (c) discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. [107506]

  Mr. Hain
  We receive information from a wide range of sources on human rights abuses worldwide including instances of religious persecution, discrimination and violence. Over the past year we have received reports of abuse of freedom of belief in the following countries:Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Egypt, China, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Nepal and the Russian Federation.

  We urge all states to implement laws and practices which foster tolerance and mutual respect and to protect religious minorities against discrimination and intimidation.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the number of Christians murdered in the Eastern Islands of Indonesia in the last three months; and what related representations he has made to the Indonesian Government. [107505]

  Mr. Battle
  The situation is highly volatile and there are no reliable casualty figures. The Indonesian media have reported that over 1,000 Christians and Muslims have been killed in Maluku since the new year. These tragic deaths highlight the importance of the new Indonesian Government's efforts to secure peace and reconciliation in Maluku in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme—a process we fully support.

  We intend to raise our concerns about Maluku with President Wahid during his visit to London on 1–2 February.

  Humanitarian Crises
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK proposals for international action in response to humanitarian crises which he is discussing with international partners. [108095]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech at the Mansion House on 22 November that the international community needs an agreed framework on when and how it is appropriate to intervene in the face of massive violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. The United Nations Charter declares that armed force should not be 460W
  used, save in the common interest. We need to build consensus on what that common interest is and how we define it.

  We believe that the development of a set of pragmatic understandings on action in response to humanitarian crises would help the Security Council—acting on behalf of the Members of the United Nations—to reach consensus when such crises occur, thus ensuring effective and timely action by the international community. In this context, we have put to the UN Secretary-General and to key international partners a set of ideas, of which the key elements are:
  first, any intervention is by definition a failure of prevention. Force should always be the last resort.
  second, the immediate responsibility for halting violence rests with the state in which it occurs;
  but, third, when faced with an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe and a government that has demonstrated itself unwilling or unable to prevent it, the international community should take action;
  and finally, any use of force in this context must be collective, proportionate, likely to achieve its objective, and carried out in accordance with international law.

  The detail of these preliminary ideas is still under discussion with partners. Once we have had time to take account of their views and develop our proposals further, we will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  EU Council Business
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for February, together with the major European Union events for the next six months. [108096]

  Mr. Vaz
  The information requested is in the Library.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips and (b) theft his Department has recorded in the last five years. [106217]

  Mr. Battle
  In the past five years, there has been:(a) one case of fraud involving improper use of the internet, (b) thirteen cases of theft.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106228]

  Mr. Battle
  In the last five years, there has been no evidence of FCO staff accessing systems to which they are not authorised. Over this period there has been only one known unauthorised entry from outside the department. This occurred in 1995 when an unknown hacker gained access to an unclassified internal system.

  Illegal Drugs Trade
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total amount spent in the course of reducing the illegal drugs trade in
  461W
  (a) South America, (b) Eastern Europe and (c) Africa and Asia in each of the past 10 years; and what assessment he has made of the effect of this expenditure in reducing the trade in drugs. [106185]

  Mr. Battle
  A breakdown of spending on specific regions is available only for the last three years, as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  South America

  0.29

  0.74

  0.9

  Eastern Europe

  0.65

  0.67

  0.82

  Africa and Asia

  1.74

  1.65

  1.96

  The increased focus brought to our international counter-drugs activities by this Government's 10-year drugs strategy has resulted in targeting of assistance on the countries posing the greatest drugs threat to the UK. Recent UK assistance to Iran is helping that country to make the world's biggest seizures of opiates (180 tonnes in 1998), much of which would otherwise reach the UK and the rest of Europe. The close co-ordination of our international counter-drugs work helped HMS Marlborough and HMS Northumberland to seize more than 11 tonnes of cocaine in 1999, worth well over £1 billion at UK street prices.

  Documents
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) for what reasons documents FCO 9/1053 and FCO 42/342 have been retained by his Department; and when he expects them to be available to the public; [107449]

  (2) what is the subject matter of the Public Record Office files on (a) FCO 42/146, (b) FCO 42 342 and (c) FCO 9/1053; and if he will make a statement; [107785]

  (3) for what reasons document FCO 42/146 deposited in the Public Record Office is to remain closed to public inspection until 2009. [107448]

  Mr. Battle
  The subject matter of these three files is UK policy concerning Gibraltar in 1967–69. The respective file titles, which are given in shelf-lists available at the Public Record Office and on their web-site, are: possible UN mediation on Gibraltar; possible investigation by the Crowther Commission into the Constitution; and Gibraltar dispute.

  An application to close FCO 42/146 and FCO 9/1053 for 10 years after their due release date of 1 January 1999 has been made to the Lord Chancellor in accordance with Section 5(1) of the Public Records Act of 1967. This is because release of these documents would harm the United Kingdom's international relations. The application to close the files in our view meets the criteria for extended closure of public records set out in Chapter 9.10–14 of the White Paper on Open Government (Cm. 2290). In accordance with the requirements of the White Paper, these files will be re-reviewed for release in 10 years time.

  FCO 42/342 has recently been cleared for release to the Public Record Office and will be available there shortly.

  Arms Exhibitions
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's process is for checking that arms companies exhibiting and trading at British arms fairs are complying with the UK Landmine Act 1998 and the Ottawa Convention. [104297]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 24 November 1999, Official Report, column 116W. While there is no specific check for compliance with the Landmines Act 1998, all companies exhibiting and trading at UK defence exhibitions are subject to UK law: this includes the Landmines Act 1998, which brings into effect the provisions of the Ottawa Convention.

  Where the MOD supports an exhibition, UK contractors are scrutinised for compliance against the Handbook of Industrial Security. Overseas contractors are not bound by the Handbook, but are subject to spot checks by MOD staff. In addition, HM Customs & Excise make targeted checks at import to enforce the prohibition on the importation of anti-personnel mines and components.

  Bahrain
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of 6 ML1 SIELS and 1 ML1 OIEL exported to Bahrain this year. [99505]

  Mr. Hain
  [pursuant to my reply, 24 November 1999, c.149W]An administrative error led to a mistake in my earlier answer to the hon. Member of 24 November 1999. The correct answer is as follows:

  All export licence applications for Bahrain for ML1 equipment this year have been for private/recreational use by the ruling family, for national defence by the Bahrain Defence Force, who are not involved in internal security, or for the training unit of the Bahrain National Guard.

  All export licences for Bahrain are considered against the established criteria, including whether there is a clearly identifiable risk of the equipment being used for external aggression or internal repression, in which case it will be refused.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy (Employment Law)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough representing the Church Commissioners, when he expects the Commissioners to review employment law as this relates to the appointment of clergy; and if he will make a statement. [105973]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Archbishops' Council is responsible for matters relating to the employment status of clergy. The Council is considering the implications of the Employment Relations Act 1999 for the clergy and is awaiting the publication of the DTI's consultation document promised in the early months of this year.

  Clergy (Remuneration)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the change in the remuneration of the clergy since 1 May 1997. [105974]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Between 1 April 1997 and 1 April 1999, the national average stipend for incumbents increased by nearly 9 per cent. from £14,510 to £15,810.

  Evangelisation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what contribution the Church Commissioners are making to the planning of Christian evangelisation for the remainder of the year 2000 and for 2001. [105968]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  I am sure that hon. Member will agree with me that the hard-working priests of the Church of England are in the front line of evangelisation.

  The primary focus of the Church Commissioners is their support for the ongoing parochial ministry and mission, and to this end we shall be providing upwards of £120 million this year towards clergy stipends and pensions so that all parishes might play their part in sharing the Christian message with those in their communities.

  Land (Carlisle)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the future of the land in the Wigton road and Dalston road area of Carlisle owned by the Church Commissioners. [105972]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Commissioners have submitted an outline planning application to Carlisle City Council relating to approximately 50 hectares of land at Morton. The application is in respect of housing, employment, public open space and landscaping.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Staff Bonuses (New Year Period)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Council how much her Department, its agencies and associated public bodies spent in total on extra bonuses above usual payments for staff working over the New Year period, indicating the maximum and minimum bonuses paid, and the number of people to whom the maximum and minimum payments were made; and if she will make a statement. [105429]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Two members of staff in my Department received special bonuses amounting to £300 in total. Both were Private Office staff. On-call allowances were paid to three members of staff, and these totalled £256.56.

CABINET OFFICE

  Foreign Service Allowance
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if it is her policy to continue to provide a464W
  foreign service allowance to Crown servants abroad; what is the reason for this allowance; what is the annual cost of the allowance; and if she will make a statement. [106462]

  Mr. Stringer
  Responsibility for allowances paid to Home Civil Servants serving overseas was delegated to Departments and agencies on 1 April 1996. Information on the annual cost of such allowances, which reimburse and compensate staff for the essential extra cost of having to live outside the UK in order to perform their duties, is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Government-owned Properties
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Government-owned properties are currently unoccupied in the Reading, East constituency. [106459]
  Mr. Ian McCartney: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Jane Griffiths, dated 31 January 2000:
  The Minister of State for the Cabinet Office has asked me to reply to your question about the number of Government owned properties currently unoccupied in the Reading East constituency.
  Under the terms of the Civil Estate Coordination Agreement, individual Government Departments are responsible for notifying PACE of their surplus accommodation. PACE's records indicate that there are currently no unoccupied Government properties in the Reading East constituency.
  The four unoccupied properties mentioned in my previous letter of 31 October 1997 have now been disposed of by the Agency.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips, and (b) theft her Department has recorded in the last five years. [106220]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Within my Department, its Agencies, the Central Office of Information and No. 10 Downing Street, over the last five years there have been two cases of fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips, and 50 cases of theft as follows:

  Year

  Fraud

  Theft

  1995–96

  0

  9

  1996–97

  1

  10

  1997–98

  0

  11

  1998–99

  0

  7

  1999–20001

  1

  13

  Total

  2

  50

  1 To date

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in her Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside her Department. [106224]
  465W
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Within my Department, its Agencies, the Central Office of Information and No. 10 Downing Street, no illegal attempts to access computer systems have been detected over the past five years, either from within or outside.

  Regulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what regulation impact assessments were carried out by Government Departments between the coming into force of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and 1 May 1997. [107004]

  Mr. Stringer
  Between the coming into force of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act in 1994 and 1 May 1997 Government Departments were required to complete Compliance Cost Assessments which were chiefly concerned with costs to business.

  The Government's Better Regulation review of the regulatory system demonstrated the need for a more succinct and open system for assessing the full impact of regulatory proposals. Accordingly, since August 1998 Government Departments have been required to complete Regulatory Impact Assessments with the emphasis on identifying and publishing the risks, costs and benefits of proposed regulations; who is affected; and any non-regulatory alternatives.

  Details of Compliance Cost Assessments from the November 1993 to November 1998 are contained in the twice yearly Command Papers called: The Command Paper of Compliance Cost Assessments. Since November 1998 the Command papers have included Regulatory Impact Assessments and are now called: The Command Paper of Regulatory Impact Assessments.

  Regulatory Panel
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when the Regulatory Panel last met; and if she will make a statement on the nature of their discussions and the decisions taken. [107007]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Panel for Regulatory Accountability met for the first time on 15 December 1999 to discuss its role and future work programme. The members of the Panel agreed to:Take a strategic overview of the Government's regulatory plans; Ensure any necessary improvements in the regulatory system and to the performance of individual departments; and
  Take account of the particular impacts of regulation on small businesses.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the terms of reference for the Regulatory Panel. [107006]

  Mr. Stringer
  The Panel for Regulatory Accountability has been established at the heart of Government with the remit to modernise the regulatory system, simplify existing regulation and ease regulatory pressures on business and the public sector.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to introduce the new 466W
  child support measures contained in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill; and if he will make a statement. [108106]

  Mr. Darling
  The reform of the child support scheme is a major programme of work involving new legislation, new computer systems and significant changes to the way the Child Support Agency operates. We have always made it clear that we would not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government by introducing the reforms too quickly or before robust and reliable computer systems were in place and staff were properly trained. We therefore propose to introduce the new child support scheme for new cases by April 2002, by which time successful introduction can be achieved without unacceptable risks.

  As we have always made clear, existing cases will be transferred onto the new scheme once we are sure that the new arrangements are working well. Attempting to move existing cases across too quickly would, again, present unacceptable operational risks.

  The Child Support Agency is already making improvements to the service within the constraints of the current scheme and we are determined that it will continue to do so between now and 2002.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provisions he has made to allow hardship payments of Jobseeker's Allowance to be paid to a third party. [108107]

  Angela Eagle
  The provision that enables all or part of a person's benefit to be paid to a third party, where it is in the interests of the claimant or a member of his family to do so, has been a long standing feature of the Social Security system.

  An anomaly in the Jobseekers Act 1995 prevented this provision from applying to hardship payments of Jobseeker's Allowance. This restriction has now been removed by Part V of Schedule 8 to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, which came into force on 11 November 1999.

  Maternity Grants
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many mothers he estimates will benefit from the sure start maternity grant in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in the first year of its operation; and if he will make a statement. [107256]

  Angela Eagle
  The Sure Start Maternity Grant Scheme, which will replace maternity payments, commences on 27 March for parents who are expecting a baby on or after 11 June 2000. It is a grant of up to £200 per child which may be payable to claimants (or their partners) of Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and Disabled Persons Tax Credit (DPTC).

  We are unable to provide an estimate in the format requested. The Benefits Agency (BA) collates statistics by BA district office. The district boundaries do not correspond to constituency boundaries. The Shires district comprises offices at Shrewsbury, Telford, Hereford, Worcester and Kidderminster.
  467W
  In the last complete year for which figures are available, April 1998 to March 1999, 2,495 maternity payments were awarded in the Shires district. We predict that there will be 2,535 payments in 1999–2000. This leads us to believe that there may be 2,688 payments in 2000–001, the first year of the new scheme.

  Benefit Reduction
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children living with parents with care will under the new formula in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill be entitled to reduced support; and what the average loss for each child will be. [106571]

  Angela Eagle
  Overall, more than 1 million children will be better off as our reforms take effect. If all existing cases moved to the new scheme today, we estimate that, where the non-resident parent is in work, around 350,000 parents with care, with around 500,000 children, would have a lower assessment. The average reduction for parents with care would be around £17 a week in total, which equates to around £11 per child.

  However, because of the introduction of a maintenance premium in Income Support and the 100 per cent. disregard of maintenance in Working Families Tax Credit, around 85 per cent. of children will be better off at the point they first come to the CSA than they would have been under the old arrangements. In the remaining cases, although assessments may be lower under the new scheme, we will get more of what is due actually paid—compliance is expected to increase to 80 per cent. or more, compared with 66 per cent. now—so the difference in cash terms will not be so marked. Also, changes in liability for existing cases will be phased in.

  Notes:

  1. New scheme maintenance modelled on August 1998 5 per cent. scan of Child Support Computer System.

  2. Caseloads calibrated to forecast 'A' day levels, and rounded to the nearest 10,000. The average change in maintenance entitlement is rounded to the nearest 50 pence.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the letter dated 20 September 1999 from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough on behalf of Mr. Edward Hynes of Market Harborough to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley). [106306]

  Mr. Bayley
  A reply was sent on Friday 27 January 2000.

  Minimum Pension Guarantee
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) of 25 January 2000,Official Report, column 169W, on the minimum pension guarantee, if he will place a copy of his letter to the hon. Member in the Library. [107759]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have placed a copy of my letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) in the Library.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106227]

  Angela Eagle
  There have been no recorded cases of Departmental computer systems being illegally accessed by internal or external hackers.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips, and (b) theft his Department has recorded in the last five years. [106218]

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

  Incidents of fraud

  Financial year

  Fraud

  1995–96

  18

  1996–97

  18

  1997–98

  20

  1998–99

  6

  1999–2000

  1—

  1 Figures not yet available. Will be collated for HMT Return on Internal Fraud approximately May 2000

  Incidents of theft

  Year

  Total

  By outsiders

  By staff

  Unattributed

  1995

  234

  128

  2

  104

  1996

  389

  236

  10

  143

  1997

  188

  102

  3

  83

  1998

  78

  24

  7

  47

  1999

  38

  17

  3

  18

  Automated Credit Transfer
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the cost to the Benefits Agency of making payments to claimants via automated credit transfer; and if he will state how that figure is calculated; [107452]

  (2) he will publish arrangements to set up bank accounts for benefit payment recipients who do not have bank or building society accounts; [107450]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of welfare benefit recipients who will receive payments via automated credit transfer by the end of (a) 2003, (b) 2004 and (c) 2005. [107451]

  Mr. Rooker
  The overall average unit cost to the Benefits Agency of making a payment to a claimant via automated credit transfer (ACT) is in the order of 1p.

  It is not appropriate to give a full breakdown of how this figure is calculated as part of the costs are commercially confidential between the Benefits Agency and its suppliers.

  The vast majority of benefit customers already have bank accounts. We will be making arrangements for the people and payments where ACT is not the right answer. This may include supporting people as they access the

  469W
  increasing number of simple banking products being introduced. As these arrangements will not be required until after 2003 we are still researching our customers' needs and studying current market trends.

  In 2003, the transition from current paper-based methods of payment will begin, and by the end of 2005 the majority of benefit recipients will receive payments via automated credit transfer. Detailed migration plans are not yet in place. We are still researching our customers' needs and will ensure that the migration is managed carefully and in a way that will not put at risk the efficient distribution of benefit payments.

  Around one third of benefit recipients already choose to have their benefits paid by automated credit transfer, direct into their bank accounts, and the vast majority, around 85 per cent, already have access to a bank account. However, there will be some limited exceptions. We have given an assurance that those benefit recipients, whether paid by automated credit transfer or otherwise, who wish to collect their benefits in cash at post offices will continue to be able to do so.

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department has taken to encourage local authorities to prevent fraud from entering the benefit system. [107669]

  Mr. Rooker
  We are committed to taking tough action to combat Housing Benefit fraud. We have made an additional £100 million available to enable all LAs to implement the Verification Framework by 2001. The Framework forms a platform for the secure and accurate administration by defining the evidence which should be gathered to support a claim, and for the frequency of subsequent checks. As of 28 January 2000, 226 LAs have received funding to implement the Framework.

  We have reformed the anti-fraud financial incentive scheme for local authorities to ensure they can be rewarded for detecting and prosecuting cases of fraud. We want all LAs to implement the Verification Framework so we have built additional incentives into the scheme to encourage them to do so. Every LA that adopts the Framework can qualify for extra subsidy payments.

  We have invited all local authorities to participate in the Royal Mail "do not redirect" initiative which prevents benefit claimants from using Royal Mail's postal redirection arrangements to make false claims to benefit from multiple addresses. Already, well over 200 local authorities are operating this scheme and many more are preparing to implement it.

  We have made £4 million available to install computer terminals in local authorities which provide access to the Department's benefit systems. We are now looking to extend this initiative to include exchanging information electronically between local authorities and the Department, providing further scope to prevent fraud and error occurring in the first place. The electronic transfer of data is being successfully piloted with 20 LAs and we plan to roll this service out nationally from February 2000.
  470W
  We have announced on 24 January that we are setting up a National Benefits Intelligence Unit to help crack down on benefit fraud. The unit will draw on the expertise of fraud investigators in the Department, as well as intelligence from local authorities and other agencies.

  Finally, we have arranged a programme of visits by the Benefits Fraud Inspectorate to the top 30 spending councils to drive-up standards of benefit administration and counter fraud performance. This programme of visits is due to be completed by September 2000.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) for each quarter since BASIS was formed how many fraud cases compiled by BASIS's National Intelligence Unit(a) were forwarded to the police investigation and (b) resulted in a prosecution; [107444]

  (2) what were the responsibilities and achievements of BASIS's Business Development Team for each of the last five years. [107445]

  Mr. Rooker
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 28 January 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking for each quarter since BASIS was formed how many fraud cases compiled by BASIS's National Intelligence Unit (a) were forwarded to the police investigation and (b) resulted in a prosecution, and what were the responsibilities and achievements of BASIS's Business Development Team for each of the last five years.
  The Benefit Agency Security Investigation Service (BASIS) exists to counter the threat of organised and serious fraudulent attacks on the benefit system. The team's priority is to prevent and deter fraud. It is part of the Security Branch whose role is to promote the development and provision of secure and accurate services in the Benefits Agency.
  The National Intelligence Unit (NIU) provides intelligence for BASIS in the Security Branch and links with other risk management teams. It does not refer investigations to the Police because all intelligence and information is referred to either BASIS Operational Teams or relevant BA sections.
  The NIU exists to support the Benefits Agency through; gathering and analysing information; referring the gathered intelligence to the appropriate BASIS investigation team, via the Analyst Unit; it also acts as a multi agency link to other Government Departments.
  BASIS does not refer cases of benefit fraud to the police for investigation. If during an investigation the need to involve the police arises the team will contact them and appraise them of the situation. At this point a joint operation may be conducted. BASIS officers would concentrate on benefit fraud whilst the police may look at other linked criminal activity.
  There are no figures kept for prosecutions resulting from joint operations. However, in 1998–1999 BASIS prosecuted 666 cases of benefit fraud with a 96% successful conviction rate.
  The BASIS Business Development Team (BDT) was established in March 1999 with the appointment of a Business Development Manager. The BDT is a small team which exists to support BASIS in improving its business processes and to support the team in meeting the objectives of the Agency and Department.
  The most notable achievements of the BDT in the eleven months of its existence are improvements in processes such as expenditure and performance accountability, internal security assurance, communication, management checks, industrial relations, training & development, planning and reporting. Work on BASIS terms and conditions and a review of the Guidance Manual has improved clarity around individual entitlement. The current recruitment drive has brought in 50 new staff to date. The IT strategy for this year is

  471W
  on course to upgrade our capability throughout the Section and other equipment is being standardised and renewed. Moreover, the work of the BDT has allowed the Operational and BASIS National Intelligence Unit managers to apply a greater focus on the core business of investigation, detection, deterrence and prevention of organised and serious fraud against the benefits system.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefit Overpayments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the reasons for the recent overpayment of benefit into recipients' bank and building society accounts; [107543]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the extra costs incurred in recovering the overpayment of benefits paid direct into beneficiaries' accounts; and if he will make a statement. [107542]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefit payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 28 January 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent questions asking if he will make a statement on the reasons for the recent overpayment of benefit into recipients' bank and building society accounts, and also, what estimate he has made of the extra costs which will be incurred in recovering the benefit overpaid.
  The problem was caused by an incomplete file being erroneously passed to the Bankers Automated Credit Service for payment on 17 January, compounded by the correct file being reprocessed for payment on 18 January.
  On 17 January 112,000 customers correctly received a payment into their bank accounts, while 60,000 customers did not receive the payment which was due. The following day, the same 112,000 customers received a duplicate payment into their accounts, while the 60,000 customers received their payment a day late. The value of the duplicate payments amount to £10.5 million.
  Customers were notified of the problem by letter on 24 January and given details of how to repay the duplicate payment. Dedicated phone lines were set up to receive phone calls from those customers who needed to talk to somebody about how to pay the money back. Customers can also contact their local benefit offices for advice.
  No estimate is yet available as to the extra costs incurred in recovering the overpaid benefit.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how much benefit was overpaid due to a processing error notified to recipients in a letter from the Benefits Agency Central Recovery Group Manager dated 23 January; and if he will make a statement; [107533]

  (2) what steps he will take to recover overpaid benefit due to a processing error notified to recipients in January from those people who are unable to pay it back immediately; and if he will make a statement; [107535]

  (3) how many people were contacted about benefit overpayments by the Central Recovery Group Manager of the Benefits Agency in letters to recipients in January. [107534]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefit payments is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  472W
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 28 January 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your recent questions asking if he will make a statement about how much benefit was overpaid due to a processing error notified to recipients in a letter from the Benefits Agency Central Recovery Group Manager dated 23rd January, how many people received letters and what steps he will take to recover overpaid benefit due to the error from those people who are unable to pay it back immediately.
  A computer processing problem resulted in a batch of Income Support payments paid by Automated Credit Transfer being duplicated. 112,000 Income Support customers received duplicate payments amounting to £10.5m. The payments were made into customers' bank accounts on 18 January. The duplicate payments made represent a very small proportion of the total number of Income Support payments the Agency makes each year.
  Customers were notified of the problem by letter on 24 January and given details of how to repay the duplicate payment. Letters were issued to 109,663 customers. Letters were not issued where we had been informed the customer had since died or where the amount paid was less than £5.
  The Secretary of State has a duty to seek recovery under common law where an overpayment has arisen outside of the provisions of Sections 71 and 74 of the Administration Act 1992. Recovery under common law has been a feature of the social security system since its inception.
  The BAs Central Recovery Group has set up dedicated phone lines to receive phone calls from customers who needed to speak to somebody about how to pay the money back. Customers can also contact their local benefit offices for advice and guidance.
  I hope this is helpful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what change there has been in the time between arrest and sentencing since May 1997 for young offenders in(a) West Mercia and (b) Shrewsbury Police Division; and if he will make a statement. [107168]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information on the time between arrest and sentencing in 1997 is available for persistent young offenders only, not all young offenders.

  The average time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offender cases initiated in West Mercia Police Area was 155 days in 1997, and an estimated 88 days in January to June 1999—the most recent figure from the same source. This amounts to a reduction of 67 days. Figures for May 1997 alone and Shrewsbury Police Division are not separately available.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106237]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested in(a) is set out in the table. There have been no recorded instances of hackers attempting to gain access to our computer systems from outside the Department.
  473W

  Department

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Court Service

  2

  1

  9

  3

  1

  Public Trust Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Land Registry

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Public Records Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  2

  1

  9

  3

  3

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips and (b) theft his Department has recorded in the last five years. [106210]

  Jane Kennedy
  There has been one attempted incident of computer fraud recorded. The information requested in(b) is set out in the following table.

  Department

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  3

  7

  1

  4

  0

  Court Service

  21

  27

  10

  15

  6

  Public Trust Office

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Land Registry

  0

  6

  6

  4

  5

  Public Records Office

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  25

  40

  19

  24

  11

  Maintenance Orders
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his policy is in respect of the enforcement of maintenance orders against former partners residing overseas, with particular reference to the case of Mrs. J. Basu of Formby (ref. 98603). [107026]

  Jane Kennedy
  The UK is a party to seven international Conventions and Agreements, which have established reciprocal arrangements with a number of foreign authorities. These are designed to assist a person entitled to receive payments under a maintenance order in one country to obtain payment from a former partner residing in another. The Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible for transmitting and receiving papers between the UK courts and the overseas authorities. It would be inappropriate to comment on individual cases.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to seek an amendment of the law to simplify the application process for lottery grants. [105949]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  None. My officials are, however, working with distributors to find ways of simplifying the Lottery application process to ensure that it is user-friendly and that forms are written in plain language. We already have in place the popular Awards for All scheme, which is a straightforward way for community groups to apply for grants of £500 to £5,000. One simple application form covers charities, arts, sport and heritage 474W
  groups. The Quality, Efficiency and Standards Team which I established is currently looking at how the costs of making a Lottery application can be obtained.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what contribution the lottery is making towards encouraging the playing of competitive sporting fixtures in schools. [105958]

  Kate Hoey
  We have asked Sport England to ensure that arranging inter-school competitive fixtures is a key part of the job description of the Active School Sports Co-ordinators. Active Schools Sports Co-ordinators is a new Sport England initiative which is being supported by the Lottery Sports Fund with additional support expected to come from partnership funding, including NOF. Detailed proposals for the initiative are being drawn up in conjunction with key partners.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the public response to opinion surveys of people leaving the millennium dome. [105951]

  Janet Anderson
  In marked contrast to the opinions of some media commentators, polls of people visiting the Dome show that the majority of them have extremely encouraging positive reactions and views. Polls of Dome visitors by The Sunday Times, The Mirror, ITN and The Independent in the first week of opening all showed high approval ratings. Results ranged from 91 per cent. in the ITN poll on 7 January saying the Dome was worth the trip, to 85 per cent. in The Sunday Times poll of 9 January saying they enjoyed the Dome and 74 per cent. in the same poll saying they would recommend it to friends. On 13 January the London Evening Standard poll, conducted by ICM, reported that 8 out of 10 visitors said that they were satisfied or very satisfied with the Dome. Other findings reported were that seven out of 10 visitors would recommend their friends to come; half are keen to return for a second visit; that children are especially enthusiastic; and most said their day was better than expected.

  Recognising the inevitable bedding-in and teething problems being experienced by this unique visitor attraction over its first few weeks of operation, these high level outcomes from polls undertaken by third parties give every indication that the Millennium Experience at the Dome will, over its 12 months of operation, be a great success. The New Millennium Experience Company itself is conducting a visitor opinion poll through MORI covering the first month of operation and will have the results by mid February.

  Arts Subsidies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what were the total public subsidies paid to(a) opera, (b) live theatre and (c) poetry in the last financial year. [105953]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  During the last financial year, opera received around £35 million in grant-in-aid from the Arts Council of England, live theatre £27 million and literature £1.5 million, of which poetry received nearly 70 per cent. (or £1 million).

  Public Service Broadcasting
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the role of public service broadcasting. [105954]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Public service broadcasting must remain at the heart of our broadcasting system. Despite the increase in choice which digital television brings, we will continue to need public service broadcasters to sustain a diversity of viewpoints and to act as a quality benchmark.

  National Athletics Stadium
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the designation of a new national athletics stadium. [105955]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  No decision has yet been taken about the location of a national athletics stadium. We are currently looking carefully at the options for staging major athletics events, including the 2005 World Athletics Championships and Olympic Games.

  NESTA
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made with the establishment of the national endowment for science, technology and the arts; and if he will make a statement. [105957]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) is now fully established and is in a position to begin using the income generated by its £200 million endowment, over f10 million per year, to support innovative ideas and creative individuals. Its Invention and Innovation Programme, which will help turn creative ideas and inventions into reality, opened for applications on 14 December 1999, and the first awards will be made in March. NESTA's other programmes, involving fellowships for exceptionally talented individuals and support for ground-breaking educational schemes, will also come on stream this spring.

  Budding inventors and innovators can get in touch with NESTA via its website—www.nesta.org.uk

  Film Industry
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to increase inward investment in the UK film industry. [105959]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government introduced tax breaks in 1997, and a new definition of "British film" last year, which make it more financially attractive for foreign film makers to film in Britain. Government Departments are also working in close co-operation with the British Film Commission to attract foreign film makers to the UK. This has enabled us to set up the British Film Office in Los Angeles. In November I launched a DVD, produced by the Government and British film industry, which provides film makers with an introduction to the first class film making facilities in the UK. We have also set up the Film Council to deliver a coherent strategy for 476W
  the development of a sustainable UK film industry, and we shall continue to be strongly supportive of its work to increase inward investment.

  Sport (Television Rights)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage professional sports bodies to invest income from the sale of television rights in local sports facilities. [105960]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Many governing bodies have signed the Central Council for Physical Recreation's Voluntary Code, under which a minimum of 5 per cent. of broadcasting income is invested in grass roots development. The football authorities have recently re-affirmed their commitments to allocating 5 per cent. of future broadcasting revenues in that way. The Government are in detailed discussion with them about how best to ensure that these funds are used to improve the development of grass roots football in England.

  Millennium Events
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of how events across the country to mark the new millennium were received. [105961]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Millennium Commission today published a report about the new year celebrations including the major events that took place in 22 cities across the United Kingdom and the Beacon Millennium project. It concludes that overall the celebrations were very well received and extremely successful. Given that many of the cities involved do not have a tradition of large scale public new year events, this is a tremendous achievement. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  In addition, the Government have received very positive feedback on the major religious events that took place during the first weekend of 2000: the four Millennium Church Services in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast and the Shared Act of Reflection and Commitment by the faith communities of the UK.

  The new year celebrations were just the start of a year long Millennium Festival to mark the new Millennium, funded by the National Lottery. People will be celebrating at many thousand events, both large and small, right across the UK in what is probably the biggest planned programme of celebrations the country has seen.

  Dome Sponsors
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many dome sponsors have yet to finalise their contractual arrangements. [105962]

  Janet Anderson
  Boots The Chemist, Mars Confectionary and BskyB: all three sponsors remain committed at Board level and we are confident that contractual arrangements will be finalised in the very near future.

  Sponsored Bodies (Funding)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his Department's objectives are in negotiating three-year funding agreements with sponsored bodies. [105964]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Funding agreements place a clear responsibility on bodies which receive public money to deliver against demanding output targets, and demonstrate how public money is used in pursuit of Government objectives.

  Tourism
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the balance of payments relating to earnings from tourism. [105965]

  Janet Anderson
  The Office for National Statistics has estimated, using data from the International Passenger Survey and other sources, that the direct contribution to the UK balance of payments arising from tourism is as shown in the table:

  £ million

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Exports: earnings from overseas visitors to UK

  13,770

  13,805

  14,366

  Imports: expenditure by UK residents going abroad

  16,729

  17,443

  20,194

  Balance of trade in services

  -2,959

  -3.638

  -5,828

  Source:

  The UK Trade in Services (Balance of Payments)—Office for National Statistics 1996, 1997 and 1998

  This is not a full account of the balance of payments effects of tourism; such an account would need to include, for example, overseas trade in tourism goods and the international investment flows of tourism companies.

  In 1998, UK tourism recorded a deficit—£5,828 million on its balance of payments. For the third quarter of 1999 there was a continued deficit of £2,019 million in the balance of payments for tourism.

  The upward trend in tourism by both overseas residents to the UK and by UK residents abroad continued in 1998. Exchange rate movements have had significant effects on both overseas and UK residents' travel.

  Volunteering
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department has taken to promote volunteering. [105950]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department supports a wide range of cultural and leisure activities which not only provide opportunities for volunteering, but benefit greatly from such participation. Volunteers contribute to the achievement of our key objectives, in particular the promotion of access to cultural and leisure activities for all. My Department already does much to recognise, promote and support volunteering and we are currently reviewing our efforts in this area to identify how we can build on this.

  Films (Children)
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what future steps he is taking to encourage the British film industry to make more films for children. [105952]

  Janet Anderson
  I have asked the Chairman of the Film Council to consider the recommendation of the Film Education Working Group that production of films for children should be one of the priorities of the Council's Lottery strategy. The availability of a wider range of films for children could lead to both educational and commercial benefits.

  TV Licences
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will amend regulations concerning the need for television licences in houses of multiple occupation, to ensure that in those owned by universities for the use of students each student who has a television receiver is not required to purchase a separate licence. [107232]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government have no plans to amend the television licensing regulations so as to exempt students in accommodation owned by universities from the normal licensing requirements applicable to people living in accommodation in multiple occupation. To do so would discriminate against students living in other types of accommodation, while extending the concession to all students would inevitably prompt demands for similar concessions for other people living in comparable accommodation.

  Seaside Resorts
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to encourage the regeneration of British seaside resorts; and if he will make a statement. [105966]

  Janet Anderson
  Regeneration of our seaside resorts is one of 15 key action points in the Government's tourism strategy document "Tomorrow's Tourism". We have made good progress in many areas that will impact beneficially on resorts, including accommodation schemes and the number of resorts included in the new Objective 2 European funding map.

  In line with its funding agreement with my Department, the English Tourism Council is driving action on resorts and has set up a Resorts Task Force, drawing upon expertise from both public and private sectors. The Task Force first met last Wednesday and will develop a programme of action to assist resorts with their regeneration strategies.

  Nautical Archaeology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to increase his Department's support for nautical archaeology. [106035]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review in 1998, my Department has allocated programme expenditure of £255,000 per annum on underwater archaeology for the three years 1999–2000 to
  479W
  2001–02. Allocations for the subsequent two years will be reviewed as part of the Government's current spending review.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on how many occasions in each of the past five years computer systems in his Department have been illegally accessed by computer hackers(a) within and (b) outside his Department. [106230]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  No DCMS computer system has been illegally accessed in the last five years.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many cases of computer(a) fraud, including fraudulent use of computer chips, and (b) theft his Department has recorded in the last five years. [106214]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department has not recorded any cases of computer fraud over the last five years. There has been one incident of computer theft where a PC system unit was stolen from the Department. The police were informed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on farm incomes. [108103]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Estimated figures show that total income from farming remains broadly unchanged in 1999 compared with 1998. The continued difficulties in the farming industry are as a result of lower prices for most agricultural commodities due to the oversupply of commodity markets. The strength of sterling, which affects all sections of the economy, has also been a factor. Detailed estimates of the income, output and productivity of United Kingdom Agriculture in 1999 were published this morning and have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Soya Products (Glyphosate)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to publish results on glyphosate residues in soya products. [108104]

  Ms Quin
  Interim results on glyphosate residues, taken from the Government's ongoing monitoring programme for pesticides, are being published today. A summary of the results from the first six months of a year-long survey of residues in soya products appears in MAFF's Food Safety Information Bulletin. The results show that none of the samples tested contained residues of glyphosate above the reporting level. Copies of the Food Safety Information Bulletin and a more detailed information paper have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Pig Sector
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to assist pig producers. [106859]

  Ms Quin
  Steps have already been taken. Formal and informal pig farming co-operatives were eligible to apply for a marketing grant under the Agriculture Development Scheme 1999. The scheme closed for applications on 30 November 1999 and successful applications will be announced shortly. My right hon. Friend the Minister has also announced his intention that pig producers will benefit significantly from an extra £5 million earmarked to help farmers improve their marketing, collaboration and competitiveness. Discussions with the industry are currently taking place on ways of making best use of the money.

  The "verification officer" appointed by the Minister will continue his work with industry bodies to identify cases where product is being sold at retail or catering level which might mislead the consumer into believing it contains pork of British origin when in fact it is imported. He will also continue to check progress on the commitment given some time ago by major retailers that all their own label fresh pork and certain processed products such as bacon would come from stall and tether and Meat and Bone Meal free production systems.

  At the request of the Minister, the interpretation of the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 as they affected origin marking are to be tightened up. New industry guidelines were put out for consultation and responses received. Those guidelines will be issued shortly.

  We continue to try and persuade public authorities that buying to British welfare and other standards offers good value and meets the needs of their "customers". To back up this message, the Minister has written to local councils and health authorities in England to emphasise the importance of sourcing to British standards.

  The Minister wrote to Commissioner Fischler on 20 October urging him to re-open the Aids to Private Storage scheme and re-instate the special refund on exports of fresh and frozen carcase meat and cuts to Russia. In addition, UK officials attending the monthly Pigmeat Management Committee meeting, chaired by the Commission, have called for similar action at each meeting since September 1999 (most recently, at the meeting on 18 January).

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the European Union Commissioner on state aids to the pig sector. [106858]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister has many discussions with Mr. Fischler on all manner of topics. The Minister wrote to Mr. Fischler on state aids on 20 December 1999 and both he and I discussed these with Mr. Fischler in the margins of the Agriculture Council on Monday 24 January.

  Rodenticides
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls are in place to regulate the use of rodenticides; and if he will make a statement. [106655]
  481W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 25 January 2000]All pesticides, including rodenticides, are subject to strict statutory control. Anyone wishing to gain an approval for a rodenticide is required to submit a substantial data package for rigorous assessment by the departments responsible for pesticides. Advice is also sought from the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides on any application for a new use of an approved rodenticide where significant new issues arise as well as on any new rodenticide compounds. Only if, on the basis of these assessments, Ministers are content that there are no unacceptable risks to people or the environment will the rodenticide be approved. All approved rodenticides and their uses are subject to review and, if appropriate, approvals can be restricted or revoked entirely.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the level of expenditure by his Department on research and development in each of the last 10 years. [106990]

  Ms Quin
  The Department's total expenditure on research and development in each of the last 10 financial years was:

  Year

  £ million

  1989–90

  112.2

  1990–91

  119.1

  1991–92

  121.5

  1992–93

  132.9

  1993–94

  135.0

  1994–95

  137.2

  1995–96

  139.7

  1996–97

  137.4

  1997–98

  140.5

  1998–99

  139.4

  Lindane
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the evidence assembled by other EU member states before their decisions to ban Lindane; [104528]

  (2) if he will ban the (a) sale and (b) use of Lindane; [104651]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the extent of bans on the use of Lindane in other countries; [104527]

  (4) what steps his Department takes to monitor the effects of Lindane. [104609]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 January 2000]The Government act as necessary on pesticides in order to safeguard health. In the case of lindane, using a precautionary assessment, independent scientific advice is that currently approved uses (agricultural and non-agricultural) of lindane do not pose any unacceptable risk to people or the environment. In addition all UK pesticide approval holders are legally obliged to report any scientific information relating to the safety of their products and the Government's Pesticide Incident Appraisal Panel considers all investigated incidents where the use of agricultural pesticides may have affected a person's health.
  482W
  Both the EU and UK have programmes to review pesticides and lindane is under consideration in both programmes. Last June the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, an independent body, considered evidence from both the UK and EU reviews of lindane. In the light of the Committee's recommendations the Government moved swiftly to ban those uses of lindane that gave rise to unacceptable levels of exposure with the remaining uses being allowed to continue subject to further controls to reduce exposure and, where appropriate, companies being required to submit further data including environmental data for non-agricultural uses.

  We do not routinely monitor and investigate the decisions taken by the regulatory authorities of other countries primarily because our decisions are based on the evidence and advice presented to UK Ministers about uses in the UK. Technical specifications, product formulations and uses are liable to considerable variation across the world and particular decisions elsewhere may have no direct relevance in the UK. Consequently, in the case of lindane, we have not attempted to establish its historic use overseas or the reasons why other countries have introduced partial or complete bans. The EU has yet to reach conclusions on the future European status of lindane but we have reported the action we have taken to the Commission and encouraged them to reach a European view as soon as possible.

  European Food Agency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposals put forward by the European Commission for a European Food Agency; what consultations have been held with Her Majesty's Government on the proposal; what overlap is likely with the work and responsibilities of the UK's Food Standards Agency; what Her Majesty's Government's response to the proposal has been; and when he expects proposals for legislation to be presented to the Council of Ministers. [105487]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]The Commission's White Paper on food safety published on 12 January sets out detailed proposals aimed at restoring public confidence on food safety and includes proposals for setting up an independent European Food Authority by 2002. The Commission proposes that the role of the Authority be restricted to information gathering, risk assessment and analysis, provision of scientific advice and monitoring, but with no responsibility for proposing legislation. The Commission are inviting comments on these proposals by the end of April.

  The Government welcome the proposal to set up a European Food Authority which they see as an opportunity to improve the EU food safety regime. The Government will give careful consideration to the proposals before submitting their formal and detailed response.

  During development of the proposal officials have provided the Commission with advice based on our experience in setting up the Food Standards Agency. The current proposals do not involve any Treaty change or significant alteration in the balance of EU and national responsibilities. We will be pressing for an EU Authority which complements the UK's Food Standards Agency.

  Calf Exports
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on calf exports from the UK to other EU countries. [102216]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]Exports of all live bovine animals from the UK remain prohibited under EU law.

  Further relaxation of the ban to permit the export of live bovines is foreseen in the Florence agreement. However negotiations relating to the lifting of the ban in respect of boneless beef have been by no means easy. The Government will need to consider carefully when the time is right to seek to open negotiations on the next stages of the Florence agreement.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the ban on spraying sulphuric acid on crops was removed in the UK. [103393]

  Ms Quin
  Sulphuric acid has been used as a pesticide, principally as a desiccant for potato crops, for over 50 years. The current pesticide approval for sulphuric acid was issued in November 1995.

  As part of its programme of work the Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP) reviewed the use of sulphuric acid as an agricultural desiccant in October 1997. The ACP recommended that approval could continue subject to further investigation into the potential risks to bystanders and the aquatic environment being produced.

  The Health and Safety Executive is addressing the issues associated with bystander exposure and will report its findings to the ACP. A research project, managed by the Scottish Agricultural College, is presently under way to study the effects of sulphuric acid on the buffering capacity of natural waters in isolated systems. This addresses changes in acidity in water courses adjacent to crops treated with sulphuric acid. The results are expected later this year and will also be referred to the ACP.

  Farming Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect on the farming industry of the strength of the pound. [105027]

  Ms Quin
  The present depressed state of farm incomes results from various factors, including the strength of sterling, the collapse of world prices and the loss of some 484W
  key export markets. It is difficult to single out one factor in isolation and assess its impact when the factors are to an extent interlinked.

  From 1997 to 1999, approximately £227 million was paid in agrimonetary compensation to livestock producers. A further £170 million will be paid to arable farmers in 2000, and beef, sheep and arable farmers can expect agrimonetary compensation amounting to up to £88 million during 2000.

  Family Businesses
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent steps he has taken to support family businesses in (a) rural areas and (b) national parks. [106056]

  Ms Quin
  The £1.6 billion support for Rural Development, which my right hon. Friend the Minister announced on 7 December, represents a radical redirection of support for agriculture and a significant increase in expenditure on rural development measures. The shift of emphasis away from production subsidies and the decision to modulate CAP subsidy payments mean that the rural development measures will be of benefit to family businesses in both rural areas and national parks.

  Agricultural Research
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outturn figure for Government spending on research and development relating to(a) organic farming, (b) agricultural genetic engineering and (c) agricultural biotechnology, at 1999 prices, in 1998–99. [107265]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on 13 May 1999,Official Report, column 211W, which provides the information in respect of 1998–99 R&D spend for each area, and for a number of preceding years.

  Chlormequat
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received in relation to the use of chlormequat on fruit trees. [103295]

  Ms Quin
  My Department has received a number of representations, particularly in relation to the use of chlormequat on pears. These have come from Members of the House, the public, growers and the food and agrochemical industries.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Higher Education
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Prime Minister's declaration to the United Kingdom's universities in the Romanes Lecture, delivered on 13th December 1999, that,
"the future is as much in your hands as ours",
foreshadows a relaxation in government controls over the higher education sector.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, in 2001–02 the Government plan to spend more than £7.5 billion on higher education. The Government believe that it is right both to uphold the academic freedom of higher education institutions to establish their own courses of study or programmes of research and to support their responsibility for managing their own affairs. However, the Government have a duty to maintain an appropriate level of control over the sector to safeguard public funds and the quality of provision.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Although spending on higher education is intended to increase the number of students—according to the Prime Minister's pledge, it is due to rise from 33 per cent of 18 year-olds to 50 per cent of 18 year-olds—what does the Minister consider to be an appropriate level of controls? The Government inherited from their
2
predecessor a remarkably socialist planning version of control over higher education and secondary education; to our surprise that seems to have increased. Does not the Minister accept that it may be better now to redefine the relationship between universities and government as a public/private partnership, rather than as a socialist planning activity?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should explain that the spending increases do not relate to the longer-term proposals put forward by the Prime Minister to increase to 50 per cent the numbers of young people going into higher education by the time they are 30, but to the present spending period.
As to the noble Lord's more general question, I am sure that he will accept that with very large sums of public money going into higher education institutions it is right that there should be some controls. It is appropriate, for example, that there should be controls over the overall number of students in higher education; it is right that the Higher Education Funding Council should exercise an appropriate element of control over issues of quality in order to ensure that the public get good value for money; and it is right also that the Higher Education Funding Council should look at issues such as performance indicators in order to give students, employers and others—who, after all, contribute to the cost of higher education—some indication of how well they are performing.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, the Romanes Lecture, from which the quotation is taken, was given in Oxford. The quoted remarks were put in the context of the duty of Oxford University in particular, and of other universities in that category of, if I may so describe them, Ivy League universities, to take as their first priority the admission of all students who were qualified and wished to come. Can the Minister give the House an idea of what kinds of qualification will be required for undergraduates at Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College and the "academic universities", if I

3
may put it like that? The emphasis of the lecture was very much on open access. Can the Minister say what qualifications will be required in future under the new Learning and Skills Bill for entry to those universities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the new Learning and Skills Bill has nothing to do with higher education; it does not cover universities and other higher education institutions. On the more general question about the qualifications required for entry to universities, that is a matter for the universities; the Government do not lay down requirements for universities to admit students with particular levels of qualification. It is very much a matter of university autonomy.
On the issue of open access, the Government want to encourage a widening of access so that all young people, and indeed older people, who have the potential—that is absolutely vital—to benefit from higher education can do so.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister feel that the Government's policy is designed to secure the privatisation of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what will happen to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales? Is it, as rumoured, to be amalgamated—certainly so far as concerns the secretariat—with the new Council for Education and Training, which was recently described as "the mother of all quangos"?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot confirm the rumours to which the noble Lord referred. The Higher Education Funding Council for Wales shares offices and overheads with the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. I believe that that is likely to continue.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the past the Minister has been careful to say that the Bett report is not a matter for Government, but for higher education. Do the Government not realise that the key to the universities' ability to consider freely their response to the Bett report has a great deal to do with the way in which the Government fund higher education?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I readily accept what the noble Baroness has just said; that university pay—not only of academics but of all staff in universities—is a large part of universities' expenditure and, of course, the overall level of university funding will have some impact on what is paid to staff. However, as I have already said, the Government have substantially increased the funding available to higher education institutions. They will be looking in the next spending review at public
4
expenditure in that area, as in many others. The Bett committee will be a factor in that spending review, but of course I cannot anticipate the outcome.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, bearing in mind the Government's commitment to increasing the intake of medical students by 1,000 new students each year, will the Government guarantee that the relevant universities will receive the resources necessary to teach that increased number of medical students?
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords. It is, of course, the Government's intention to provide additional funding for those institutions which have been given the opportunity to increase the number of medical students in their medical schools.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Minister has used the words "appropriate controls" and "some controls" in successive answers. In other areas the Government have been pursuing deregulation, allowing the market to take up a little. Does the Minister accept that, in this case, the Government have been moving instead in the direction of further and tighter regulation?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I do not accept that. Perhaps I may take the area of quality control in teaching as an example. The Government have asked the Higher Education Funding Council and the Quality Assurance Agency to operate with a minimum amount of bureaucracy and a light touch where appropriate.

Kosovo: Chinese Reaction
2.44 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the reported statement of the Chinese Government that the NATO attack on Yugoslavia showed that the alliance would not respect any country without nuclear weapons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, NATO intervened in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in order to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo. NATO acted in pursuit of objectives set by the UN Security Council once every reasonable opportunity of resolving the crisis by peaceful means had been exhausted. That was a unanimous decision by the 19 democracies of NATO, which received broad support in the UN Security Council. It had nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, although it perhaps escaped her knowledge that the Chinese were expressing a view which is extremely dangerous if it is not agreed or accepted—which I understand—by Her Majesty's

5
Government or by the West generally. Does the Minister not agree that the fact that such a proposition was made by a country such as China indicates a situation which must be tackled in one way or another? Will she further agree that the way to tackle the situation by international inspection, which was indicated in 1996 by the Canberra Commission—of which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was a member—has since been endorsed widely, including by our other military star, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall? Having regard to the strength of that opinion, will the Government take a look at it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should make it perfectly plain that, although there is a reported statement of the Chinese Government, I have not seen any such statement. I understand the import of what my noble friend says, but the Government cannot dictate what may or may not be in the minds of others. I repeat that we did all that was right and proper in response to that issue. The fact that the Yugoslavs did not have nuclear weapons played no part in our thinking or response.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the Minister says that the operations were designed to avert a humanitarian crisis. Was the humanitarian crisis averted?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the humanitarian catastrophe was averted.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, will the Minister advise the House whether the whole issue of the war in Kosovo was discussed by the Prime Minister with Vice Premier Wu Bangguo at their meeting on 20th January? More particularly, how do the Government intend that, as per the press communiqué from the vice premier:
"Britain should be more active and open in technological exchange and transfer"?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give your Lordships a direct answer to the first question. I shall certainly write to the noble Earl. It is clear that many issues were discussed at that time between the Chinese and the Prime Minister. I shall have to write to the noble Earl also on the second issue.
Lord Rea: My Lords, does the recent reported statement by Mr Putin, the Prime Minister of Russia, that he favours the modernisation of Russia's nuclear arsenal not indicate an even greater urgency for this country to pursue all the various international initiatives being taken to reduce the world's nuclear weapons?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is certainly right that the Government have resolved to achieve that aim—to reduce nuclear weapons and to bring about nuclear disarmament. We shall
6
continue, as I have said from this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, to do all in our power towards that end.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to an overwhelming catastrophe with regard to the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo. Can she say how many Serbians have been ethnically cleansed by the Albanians?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the position in relation to Kosovo is very difficult. We do not have specific numbers in regard to the noble Lord's question, but these issues are being dealt with. The authorities are making sure that the Serbians receive appropriate support and are maintaining as peaceful an arrangement as can be devised in all the circumstances.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there was overwhelming public support for the military action that was taken during the Kosovo crisis and that that remains the position as far as concerns this country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me of that.

Performance and Innovation Unit Report: Implementation
2.50 p.m.
Lord Newby Lord Newby asked the Leader of the House:
What steps she plans to take to implement Conclusions 28 and 29 of Wiring it Up, the January report of the Performance and Innovation Unit, in so far as they relate to the House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government fully endorse the overall conclusions of the PIU report that cross-cutting policy issues should be more effectively handled. On the specific conclusions to which the noble Lord's Question refers—on extending and improving the work of cross-cutting committees in the House of Lords—the House does, of course, already have crosscutting committees such as the one on science and technology and the ad hoc committee on the public service. In the short term, changes to those committees and their workings would need to be decided by the Liaison Committee. In the longer-term, general changes might best be considered in the context of further reform of the House.
Lord Newby: My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept from me that that was a typically disappointing Answer? Whenever questions are raised about having more Select Committees in your Lordships' House, the Government always give reasons for an amazing amount of delay. Will the noble Baroness give an

7
assurance on two points: first, that this issue, which is of considerable importance to the management of government policy in this country, will be addressed by the authorities of the House in this Parliament as a matter of urgency; and, secondly, when it is addressed, that the establishment of any new Select Committees will not be delayed or rejected because of a shortage of Clerks, rooms or any other resource?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord finds my Answer disappointing. I thought I was illustrating that your Lordships' House is rather well advanced in tackling these crosscutting issues, as the PIU report suggested Parliament should be. Apart from the two examples that I gave in my original Answer, we also have a cross-cutting committee on Europe and had one on sustainable development. All of those committees look at crosscutting policy issues. Of course, the practical arrangements for the establishment of these committees are, as I said originally, in the hands of your Lordships in general and the specific committees of the House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can my noble friend enlarge on her Answer? One of the points that puzzles some of us who have been here for quite a time is that, for the most part, nothing ever happens in the House. If one wants something to happen, either one has to be extremely disagreeable or one must accept that no progress will be made. Can my noble friend say who, on a matter of this kind, we should regard as the driving force? If we wish to see more resources made available so that noble Lords can do their job properly, who is the person who not merely answers questions but actually sees to it that something happens?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am delighted to say to my noble friend that I hope that it is not necessary to be disagreeable, although sometimes I have been described in that way in seeking to effect change in your Lordships' House, which on the whole has been successful. My noble friend raised the question of responsibility for the arrangements in your Lordships' House. I say to my noble friend—I speak to him as someone of far greater experience in terms of his membership of the House than I—that these matters have always been a question of self-regulation and of decision by the relevant committees and that they will be taken forward in that way. As I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, we entirely agree with the underlying need to improve the organisation and scrutiny of cross-cutting issues within government. The role played by your Lordships in that has, I should have thought, been usefully demonstrated in the number of committees to which I have already referred.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, it is very interesting to hear the noble Baroness refer to the changes which so far have been "successful". Perhaps
8
she would like to expand on that rather novel thought, particularly as the changes are, from the point of view of a very detached observer, hardly complete.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that I did not refer to anything being complete. In fact, in my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I said that further consideration of these issues in a more general context was probably appropriately dealt with in the context of further reform. On this side of the House at least, we believe that some of the changes that have occurred have been very useful and successful.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend, no doubt inadvertently, did not reply to the specific point raised by my noble friend Lord Peston as to whom one should mither to achieve objectives about the management of your Lordships' House. At the moment, as far as concerns costs, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, we spend far less than the other place. I hope my noble friend can confirm that the question of costs will not apply to the setting up of new Select Committees. I have in mind in particular the proposal put forward from all sides of the House to set up a Select Committee on the Bank of England and its Monetary Policy Committee. Can she confirm that that will still be dealt with properly by her or whoever is responsible?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am fascinated to receive this sequence of questions from very experienced Members of your Lordships' House which appear to suggest that the Government have executive power in the House. I sometimes wish that that were so. It is unfortunately not so. My noble friend referred to "mithering". If I interpret his point correctly, he is asking to whom he should complain. In my view, he should complain, if that is what he is suggesting, to the relevant chairmen of the relevant committees which make these decisions about the Select Committees that are in existence or are proposed.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, without in any way querying the desirability of having innovations in the proceedings of your Lordships' House, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether the Government are prepared at long last to ensure that the committee rooms are improved from the acoustic standpoint. Your Lordships will recall that I have raised this matter on many previous occasions. May we have a little action in order to ensure that these innovations may come to their full fruition so that everyone in the committee rooms can be heard?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that there would be no question of my noble friend not being heard. On his broader point, I am sure that all those involved in making these executive decisions are

9
either hearing directly the exchanges in your Lordships' House this afternoon or will read and appreciate them in Hansard.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, am I right in thinking that there is no committee on the Bank of England? Therefore, how does one go to the chairman of a non-existent committee?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I was making reference to the point that I thought my noble friend Lord Barnett was making—I may have misinterpreted him—that he wanted to make representations about the establishment of a new committee. As I said in my very first Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that would presumably be a question for the Liaison Committee and, in so far as it was a question of broader policy on committee structure, it might be very helpful for him to talk to the Chairman of Committees.

House of Lords: Appointments Commission
2.58 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to establish the independent appointments commission, promised before the report of the Royal Commission on the House of Lords, to deal with nominations to the House of Lords.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I told your Lordships last week, the Government are making progress with the establishment of the appointments commission, announced in last year's White Paper Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords. We have appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers, executive search and selection consultants, to assist in the process of identifying suitable candidates for chairman and independent members of the committee. Public advertisements have been drawn up and will appear very shortly. We hope to have the commission in place by April. However, I would emphasise that these are important appointments and we do not intend the process of making them to be skimped to meet a self-imposed artificial deadline.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for that Answer. Will she confirm that we are talking not about the appointments commission as set out in the Wakeham report but as set out in the Government's White Paper?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords, I am happy to do so. The appointments commission set out in the White Paper was the non-statutory appointments commission designed particularly to
10
make non-political Cross-Bench appointments to this House. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, is for a much broader statutory role.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, again, I cannot believe that I am the only one who regards this whole process with a great deal of disappointment. Would it not have been far better for the noble Baroness to have come to the House with an oral Statement rather than feeding out the information rather vaguely in the shape of a Written Answer regarding the role of Pricewaterhouse? Also, is this not a rather a "meagre mouse" of an appointments commission? Should not all appointments to this House be properly vetted by a properly constituted appointments commission? And should that not be backed by law rather than the whim of the Prime Minister?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord is continuing the discussion we had over many months during the passage of the House of Lords Bill in which he and his colleagues proposed a statutory commission for the interim House—the House in which we all now sit. As I remember it, when the Bill returned from another place he did not press the amendment that had initially been carried. The key difference between the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and the present situation is that the Royal Commission recommends a split between membership of the second Chamber and membership of the peerage. It would clearly be much simpler to legislate for an appointments commission which made appointments, albeit very important ones, like any other, than for a commission that sought to interpose itself, as it would now be doing, in the exercise of the prerogative. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has identified precisely that difficulty in the short term.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the noble Baroness pause for a moment and try to imagine the reaction had a Tory government proposed so important a constitutional role for a City firm of accountants? There would have been a howl of dismay and rage. Some of it might have been synthetic; nevertheless there would have been great indignation. Members on the other side would have been quick to point out the absurdity. It says a great deal for the gentlemanly behaviour of the party of which I am a member that we are so quiet in our protest. The noble Baroness and her Government are putting forward a totally unacceptable proposal.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can only suggest that the noble Lord re-reads the discussion on precisely this issue during the Committee stage of the House of Lords Bill on 13th May, as I did at the weekend. The whole process was set out by myself, clearly and at considerable length. I re-emphasise that those at PricewaterhouseCoopers are not choosing members of the commission. They are using their executive search capacity to ensure that the widest possible number of potential candidates can be identified. The Government are attempting to act in the interests of an open process. I suspect that there

11
would have been a great deal of synthetic rage about cronyism if the Government had simply announced the members of the commission.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what particular expertise does the firm Pricewaterhouse have in helping government to man important committees of this kind? Has it done work of this kind before? How much is it to receive in fees? Will the noble Baroness assure the House that it has not given any money to the Labour Party?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I cannot answer any of the practical questions. I am sure that I can say clearly that the firm has not given money to the Labour Party. The noble Lord is showing extraordinary obscurantism in dealing with this issue. All that those at PricewaterhouseCoopers are being asked to do is to provide the practical back-up on an executive appointments system, very common in the outside world, in order to achieve a good trawl of candidates. They are acting as head-hunters. That does not enable them to have any constitutional role or any discretionary role in the final choice, which will be made by a committee chaired by the Secretary of the Cabinet.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister accept that executive search companies in the City and elsewhere have been used by successive governments to make appointments of all types, including the leadership of significant committees, certainly in my personal knowledge since the beginning of the 1970s?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for confirming that point. I re-emphasise the point I made in my reply to the original Question that the executive search process will also be assisted by widespread newspaper advertising. The text of the advertisement has now been agreed and it will appear within the next few weeks.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, the noble Baroness reminded us that we debated this matter as long ago as last May. In view of the extreme urgency, is it not disgraceful that she is only now considering how to appoint the chairman, and is only indicating that we may have the committee by April?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that his party passed an amendment to the House of Lords Bill requiring that the appointments commission should be made statutory. That was done against the advice to the Government that it would then become constitutionally inappropriate to set up the commission while it was in place. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, challenged me on various occasions on that point. I have had to remind him that we were given that legal advice by precisely the same experts who gave us advice, for example, on the questions of the Treaty of Union and the Writs of Summons, which were then challenged,
12
and the Government were in a sense successful when the matter was dealt with by the relevant committee. That led to the process whereby the House of Lords Bill did not return to this House until mid-November. I am sure the noble Lord is aware, from his extensive experience, that public appointments of this kind take time to be appropriately dealt with.

House of Lords' Offices: Select Committee Report
3.6 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the 2nd Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 17) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Membership of Sub-Committees and the Advisory Panel on Works of Art
Lord Craig of Radley was appointed to the Finance and Staff and Administration and Works Sub-Committees in place of Lord Weatherill, and Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall was appointed to the Advisory Panel on Works of Art.
2. Print size of the Order Paper
The Committee endorsed a proposal to increase the print size of the white Order Paper from 10 pt. to 12 pt., so as to assist visually impaired peers.
3. Distribution of parliamentary papers
The Committee agreed that a circular should be issued to all members asking them to confirm their standing orders for the various parliamentary papers.
4. Staff of the House
The Committee was informed of the decision to appoint a full-time member of staff at pay span E.1 to assist in the Gift Shop.
5. Printing and publishing
The Committee took note of the award to The Stationery Office, following tender, of a new contract to print Bills and amendments and a new contract for the electronic publication of House papers.
6. Lords' reimbursement allowances
The Committee took note of the annual uprating of the following allowances, in line with the retail price index, with effect from 1 August 1999:

Overnight subsistence by £1.00 to £81.50

Day subsistence by 50p to £36.00

Secretarial costs by 50p to £35.00

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It gives me great pleasure to bring forward this Bill for your Lordships' approval. Its provisions will allow for an important step to be taken towards democratic renewal, by modernising electoral procedures.

13
Before I go any further, perhaps I may say how much I am looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. He comes to this House with a formidable reputation as an election campaigner and is well qualified to speak about election procedures. He joins other such speakers as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, who has a similarly formidable reputation in the same field.
The Bill will update electoral procedures to bring them out of the 19th and into the 21st century. The beginning of the new millennium has been much celebrated as the beginning of a new era. It is certainly an era of constitutional reform. Electoral procedure plays a fundamental role in the democratic process and it is important that legislation is kept up to date in order to meet the needs of the people of this new century.
The Bill will give effect to the recommendations made by the working party on electoral procedures, which were published at the end of October last year. The working party, chaired by George Howarth (then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office), started work at the beginning of 1998. Its terms of reference required it to consider changes to electoral practice that would contribute to democratic renewal in the United Kingdom.
The Howarth working party included representatives of the three main political parties, representatives of the local authority organisations, responsible central government departments, returning officers and electoral administrators. I am pleased to say that it was able to proceed by consensus.
The Howarth working party recommended legislative changes which cover four main areas: electoral registration, absent voting, pilot schemes and disabled access to the democratic process. I should like, if I may, to deal with each of these areas in turn.
First, following the working party's recommendation, this Bill will introduce a system of a rolling electoral register, to replace the current system of registration which is carried out by reference to an annual qualifying date.
As the law stands at present, anyone who moves to a new address just after the annual qualifying date of 10th October cannot vote in respect of his or her new address for 16 months. Although this might have been defensible 100 years ago, it is clearly unsatisfactory at a time when we have a very mobile population. A rolling register will allow people to register very soon after they change address. I hope that all your Lordships will welcome this change.
The Howarth working party also recommended that it should be easier for certain groups of people, some of whom are effectively disfranchised by current arrangements, to register, and therefore to vote. These groups of people are the homeless, those who are resident in mental institutions, and those on remand.
The issue of residence is a problem for those people when trying to register. The Bill creates a new concept known as a "declaration of local connection" which helps to overcome this problem. A declaration of local connection will allow homeless people to register in
14
respect of an address with which they have a connection. Remand prisoners and mental patients (other than those who have been detained as a consequence of criminal activity) will have a choice. They will be able to register either at the address where they would otherwise be resident, or in respect of the institution at which they are resident, or by means of a declaration of local connection.
The requirement that service personnel must register by means of a service declaration will also be removed. That option will still be open to them but they will be able to register in respect of their home addresses if they wish to do so.
The last area of change as regards electoral registration is in relation to the sale of the electoral register. At present, anyone who wishes to may buy a copy of the electoral register to use for any purpose. The Home Office and electoral administrators get more complaints about this issue than any other. Many people do not want to receive junk mail. Others simply want to safeguard their privacy. More importantly, new technology means it is easy to produce and obtain CD-ROMs containing every name on the register. It is therefore easy to trace people, which causes particular concerns for victims of domestic violence. There is also growing concern about the problem of stalking.
Having considered this issue very carefully, the Howarth working party unanimously recommended that the full register should not be available for general sale. As a basic matter of principle, it considered that people should not be under a statutory requirement to provide information for one purpose and then have no say about it being used for completely different purposes.
What we therefore propose is that there should in future be two versions of the electoral register—a full one and an edited one. The full one will contain the names of all electors. However, people will be given the choice as to whether they want their names to appear on the edited version.
My ministerial colleagues have already given an undertaking in another place that we shall ensure that the electorate are given sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision as to whether they want to exercise their right to opt out.
The edited version of the register will be freely available for sale and those who decide to buy will be able, as now, to use it for any purpose. However, access to the full electoral register will be limited. It will, of course, be used for electoral purposes and will be available for inspection in public libraries. We also believe that it should be available to police forces and HM Customs and Excise for law enforcement and crime prevention purposes.
However, we are very conscious that many companies and industries currently make use of the electoral register. We do not want to do anything which will do undue damage to them, while at the same time being mindful of the privacy and data protection concerns which the working party identified.

15
Accordingly, we take the view that banks and other credit institutions should have access to the full register for the purpose of establishing identity in connection with credit applications and money-laundering checks. This should help to prevent fraud and to ensure that those who decide to opt out of inclusion in the edited electoral register do not find it more difficult to obtain credit. We are advised by the Data Protection Registrar that this will not run counter to the EU Data Protection Directive.
We are currently in discussion with the credit industry to work out the precise form that the new arrangements should take. These will ultimately be set out in regulations made under Clause 9 of the Bill and I can assure your Lordships that those regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, will be accompanied by a full regulatory impact assessment.
I ought also to mention the issue of direct marketing or "junk mail", as it is more commonly known. Many people resent this intrusion. More importantly, the EU Data Protection Directive specifically refers to direct marketing. We do not believe that allowing direct marketers and charities continued access to the full register for mailing purposes would be compatible with the directive.
Overall, we believe that our proposals strike the right balance and will represent a major step forward. On the one hand, they will safeguard and enhance the rights of electors and, on the other hand, they should ensure that no one is fearful of, or discouraged from, registering as an elector.
The second main area of electoral procedure where the working party recommended changes was postal voting. As the law stands, there are a number of restrictions on who may have a postal vote. The Bill therefore makes it easier for people to obtain and cast postal votes.
Your Lordships may have noticed that I refer only to postal votes and not proxy votes. The working party was conscious that there are a number of ongoing investigations relating to allegations of proxy vote fraud and concluded that this was not the right time to relax the rules governing proxy votes. We have accepted that advice.
The Bill provides for postal votes on demand. In other words, anyone who wants a postal vote will be able to obtain one without having to satisfy any particular criteria. We are also relaxing some of the unnecessarily bureaucratic rules governing the return of postal votes, including making it possible to return postal votes to a polling station.
In another place there was some discussion on the deadlines for applying for absent votes. The general feeling was that the deadlines should be brought closer to polling day and, although this was not a recommendation of the working party, we can see merit in it.
Currently, absent vote applications, other than emergency ones, have to be made by the 11th working day prior to polling day. Following discussions with
16
electoral administrators, we believe that it will be possible to change the regulations to allow for applications to be made up to the sixth working day before polling day, although returning officers will be able to send out the papers before then so that those who apply in plenty of time will not be penalised.
The third main area on which the working party made recommendations was pilot schemes. The working party was very conscious that the only guaranteed way of seeing which of the possible changes to our electoral procedures might be effective was physically to try them out.
It therefore recommended that local authorities should be enabled to run pilot schemes to try out innovative electoral procedures. Clause 10 of the Bill provides for this, while Clause 11 allows for innovations that have been the subject of successful pilot schemes to be rolled out nationally.
Among the new procedures which local authorities may want to try out are ideas such as electronic voting, all-postal ballots, voting on days other than Thursday, and mobile polling stations, together with early voting.
I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that local authorities have enthusiastically backed this idea. Of the approximately 150 local authorities which will be holding elections this coming May, 44 of them, including both metropolitan and district councils, have applied to run pilot schemes at those elections (assuming that this Bill receives Royal Assent in time). All told, they have submitted 64 applications covering a very wide range of innovations.
All proposals will be carefully considered before being given the go-ahead. Obviously, local authorities whose pilot scheme applications are successful will be required to provide evaluations of their particular schemes. An obvious measure of how successful a pilot scheme has been will be an increase in turn-out.
An evaluation must also contain a number of other pieces of information which can help to determine the practicality of applying the new voting arrangements nation-wide; for example, the electorate's experience of the new voting arrangement.
Finally, the Howarth working party studied the problems faced by disabled voters and made a number of recommendations in this area to which the Bill gives effect. There will be a requirement for a large-print version of the ballot paper to be displayed in polling stations. This will be particularly useful for partially sighted voters. Blind and partially sighted voters will also be able to use a template. We have in mind something like a cardboard sleeve with holes cut out into which the ballot paper can be slotted so the boxes for marking a vote are accessible. The voter, having decided that the candidate for whom he wants to vote is the fourth one down—perhaps with the aid of the large-print ballot paper on display—will be able to feel where to put the cross.
At the moment, blind voters may be assisted in voting by a companion. This provision will be extended to those with physical disabilities and difficulty in reading. The Government are very conscious of the needs of disabled electors and have

17
taken steps in this area above and beyond those in this Bill. Prior to last year's European parliamentary elections, we issued to every single returning officer guidance on access standards at polling stations. We are working with organisations that represent disabled electors to produce new comprehensive and consolidated guidance to cover all aspects of the electoral process. We also provide grants to local authorities for the purchase of temporary ramps at polling stations and suitably adapted polling booths.
The Bill contains one provision which does not result from the working party's recommendations but is designed to overcome a problem which received quite a lot of coverage during the European parliamentary elections last year, when allegations were made that a number of candidates had given false addresses on nomination forms. This is a clear abuse of the system but, as the law currently stands, it is not an offence. The Bill will make it an offence for a candidate to provide false particulars on a nomination form.
The Government recognise, as did the Howarth working party, that simply to modernise electoral procedure is no; enough to combat the problem of voter apathy. The electorate will vote only if they are interested in the body being elected. All of us, particularly those who regard themselves primarily as politicians, have a responsibility to seek to generate interest among the electorate. However, if we can make it easier at d more convenient for people to vote and to exercise their democratic right, perhaps a greater number of people will feel inclined to engage in the democratic process. The changes to be brought about by this Bill will reflect modern lifestyle and behaviour and are essential if we are to attract the interest of the young electorate and the participation of everybody in the democratic process. We hope that this will encourage people to exercise their right to vote and elect representatives to government.
The Bill gives effect to the agreed recommendations of a working party which comprised representatives of the main political parties. I am pleased to say that, for the most part, it enjoyed a smooth passage through another place and that there was a genuine and constructive desire to ensure that our electoral procedures were as up to date and effective as possible. The Government are committed to reforming and updating our constitution and this Bill is an important part of that process. I am happy to be able to commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits clown, can he say whether the working party recommended the provisions in Clause 11 which permit the Minister to make an order, subject to the affirmative procedure, that a scheme put forward by a district council, for example, should apply right across the country? A district council may, for example, put forward a scheme which, under the procedure in Clause 11, may by order apply right across the country for parliamentary elections. Did the working party make that recommendation? Even if it did not do so,
18
is not the ability of a Minister to amend primary legislation by order an extraordinary accretion of power?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that the working party favoured that approach. Although I understand the concerns of the noble and learned Lord in this area, I believe that this is an important mechanism to ensure that we give effect to the proposals of the working party and make progress in an area where there is a high degree of political consensus on the need to modernise the electoral machinery. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, at the very end of the Minister's speech he said that this was one of a number of constitutional Bills. It is true that a number of constitutional Bills have gone through Parliament since this Government took office. Frankly, one of the problems with all of these measures is that there seems little sign of any grand design; more often, it is change for change's sake, with no attempt to ensure consistency between the various changes. In your Lordships' House we have ended up with a first-stage interim Chamber and the Government have no idea where they wish to end up with the second stage. We had piecemeal legislation on referendums at the beginning of this Parliament, still without any effort to produce a general framework to ensure that referendums were a fair reflection of the public mind and not one manipulated by government.
As to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, there has been no effort to create a logical, coherent structure with symmetrical powers and a uniform relationship between the parliament, the assemblies and Westminster. Only last week this fatal flaw was clearly illustrated by the shambles into which the Government and Scottish Executive had descended on the question of students' fees and grants. The Government have not given proper thought even to the consequences of this Bill for the devolution Acts. In this Bill they propose that experiments conducted entirely in England by English local authorities can be rolled out over the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland where no experiments at all may have been carried out.
Finally, one had the European Parliamentary Elections Act which changed the voting system to the most centralist method of PR that the Government could find. That was totally inconsistent with the form of PR used in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London. That Bill failed to persuade your Lordships of its merits and subsequently failed to persuade the electorate. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, echoing speeches made from the Liberal Democrat Benches in favour of the Bill—one heard very few such speeches from the Government Benches—said:
"The forthcoming elections to the European Parliament will be among the most exciting and relevant". —[Official Report, 12/10/98; col. 725.]

19
They were so exciting that the turn-out reached the dizzy heights of 23.3 per cent. That was markedly lower than any previous European parliamentary election; and it was low even by local government standards. In calling for a proper assessment of the European poll—I have not seen one yet—I said:
"it may well be that those who advocate this new system will be vindicated in their view and that the percentage poll will dramatically increase. However, it may well be the case that those of us who are less persuaded by the new systems will be vindicated and we shall see the percentage poll decline, again".—[Official Report, 25/6/98; col. 355.]
Those of us who were sceptical about the Government's proposals saw our scepticism absolutely proved in the decline in the poll. I look at this Bill with great scepticism, not so much because of the detail but because of the pious hopes behind it. The pious hopes behind the European Parliamentary Elections Act, as in the case of this Bill, were that more people would vote. I am not sure that that necessarily follows. Following our experience in the European elections, we can be allowed to treat this Bill with a good deal of critical analysis. Perhaps all of us should judge the Bill, not against the pious hopes of the Minister—we all agree that we should persuade more people to participate—but with a logical appreciation of the likely outcomes. As with the European election, the proof was in the eating of that particular pudding.
The first part of the Bill deals with registration: those who are entitled to register and the uses to which the register may be put. I say immediately that we agree with the concept of a rolling register. Given population movements, registers go out of date very quickly. I once saw a figure which indicated that about 25 per cent of a register was inaccurate by the time the next one came into being. Indeed, it is difficult to know whether a 70 per cent turn-out at elections is a good turn-out because of the people available to vote. The figure of 70 per cent may be high. We do not know exactly what will happen on polling day.
There is a good current example in the by-election in Wales to be held this Thursday. I have seen various estimates. It is estimated that something like 10 to 12 per cent of the voters will not be able to vote; but they would have been able to do so had the by-election been delayed for a fortnight. I have seen even higher figures than 10 to 12 per cent. But no one seems to argue that a considerable number of people will be denied the vote because the by-election will be fought on a residence qualification which is now a year and four to five months' old. With a delay of a fortnight, there could have been a new register. Perhaps I know why Plaid Cymru made that decision. So a rolling register is important.
However, I worry a little—we shall explore the issue—as to whether it is a rolling register or more of a lurching register. People may roll on to the register. They may roll from one register to another, but it will not be so easy to roll off a register. Registrars do not seem to be given enough authority to remove those people from the register who are no longer at that address because they have not returned the form. It
20
seems simple to expect people to return the form, but if I read the legislation correctly, if the forms are not returned the suggestion is that the electoral registration officer assumes the people are still there and carries on registering them. I do not think that that is right. I believe that the registrar can speak to the registrar of deaths from time to time. I do not see that provision in the Bill, although it was a recommendation in the working party's report.
Recommendation 4 states that registration officers should be entitled to request information from local authority data sources and other public agencies in order to allow them properly to carry out their duty of maintaining an accurate and up-to-date register. We shall want to explore the relationship between the electoral returning officer and the registrar of births, deaths and marriages. Keeping an accurate and up-to-date register is not only a matter of ensuring that people are on it who should be on it but also that people are not on it who should not be on it. Therefore, we shall consider that issue carefully.
Reading the legislation—much of it is not new; there are minor alterations to previous Acts—I note with interest that nowhere in Clause 1 is there any mention of the simple qualification that one should be a UK citizen in order to vote. I wonder why not. Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic have a mention; but not UK citizens. Why not? Can the Government tell me of a single Commonwealth country which reciprocates this right? If I go to Australia and remain a British citizen, for example, can I immediately have myself put on the electoral register in Australia? I understand that if I moved to the Irish Republic I should be able to do so. That is encouraging because the salmon fishing is better there and I occasionally wonder whether I should not move to the Irish Republic in order to improve my catch year on year. Perhaps some noble Lords opposite would be happy to pay my fare! However, I might resist. Alternatively, I might take other noble Lords with me who might be interested in the same pursuit—so long as their fares are paid! But can the Minister confirm that we have reciprocal arrangements with the Irish Republic?
Why are we having a related Bill, the Disqualifications Bill, rushed through the Commons to give Members of the Dail the right to stand and to be elected to sit in our Parliament? No explanation has been given in another place for that new policy or for the unseemly rush. Speaking for myself, I shall wish to hear a good explanation when the Bill comes to this House. I note that the three months' residence qualification remains in force for Northern Ireland but it is not to be used in Britain. I must ask the Minister why not. The dangers of fraudulent registration are as great on this side of the Irish Sea as on the other side. If he does not believe me, he should ask anyone involved in elections, especially in our cities where people are more anonymous than they are in the smaller towns and villages where people are known either directly or indirectly to many other people.

21
I have no problem with patients in mental hospitals who are not detained offenders or remand prisoners having the right to register and to vote. We shall have to guard against undue pressure being applied to vulnerable people in mental hospitals especially with regard to how they actually cast their vote. That is a matter upon which we shall have to reflect.
Nor do I have any difficulty with the homeless being granted the right to vote. However, I cannot help but note that this is a government who promised to do away with homelessness. They now seem to be accepting that they will fail and that homelessness will continue in significant numbers; otherwise why suggest that this group should be given the vote? That seems to be one of the pledges that the Government themselves admit has gone by the board.
However, we shall want to consider some problems when we look at the detail of the homeless provision. The declaration of local connection will need some scrutiny in order to ensure that it does not become a loophole for tactical moving in order to suit, say, a by-election in a marginal seat or an election like that for London mayor. I am not sure how many people could say, "I'm in London for a little time. I don't have a full time residence in London but I want to register a declaration of local connection".
Up to that point, I go along, with some reservations and questions, with what the Government are doing. But I have difficulty with Clause 9 When is a public document not a public document? When will legitimate businesses be allowed to use the electoral register as the most complete record of who lives where? A range of businesses and charitable interests are deeply concerned about this part of the Bill. I shall cite only one. I do not wish to weary your Lordships. It asserts in the words of the CBI's briefing paper that:
"The CBI does not support any limitation on the general availability of the Electoral Register. The proposed limitations will adversely affect many businesses across a variety of sectors, including direct marketing companies, charities, manufacturers and retailers who undertake marketing activities, utility companies, mail order organisations, banks and other financial institutions".
Perhaps I may add to that, charitable organisations.
In the Commons, the Government began to make some concessions. Indeed, the Minister repeated some of them today. I had thought that the Government had made some concessions in another place for charities. However, if I heard the Minister aright today, they have not done that. One of the reasons that charities want access to our names and addresses is in order to send us appeals for money for their good cause. I wondered whether I heard the Minister correctly, that charities would not be able to have access to the full register. It seems to me that we had more concessions from another place; and the more concessions we have, the more untidy the situation becomes. It is not good enough to be told that it will all be dealt with in regulations—even affirmative regulations. I shall expect to see draft regulations before we discuss these matters in Committee so that we have some idea when we debate primary legislation exactly which organisations will be allowed access to the full register and which will be banned.
22
Restricting the use of the register seems to fly in the face of the Government's desire to increase the amount of business and commerce on the Internet. Commerce on the Internet needs the ability to check that someone is who they say they are; and the register is an important source for that. I suggest that people who are on the register, which is not available, may well find that they are left out of the new e-commerce world—contrary to the Government's fine words about the expansion of e-commerce. They will have no way of proving to the person with whom they wish to conduct e-commerce that they are who they say they are. They will not be on the electoral register.
As regards who decides who will be left off the full register, the Minister said that the Government had carried out the recommendations of the working party. I do not think that they did so in this regard. The head of the household, the person who receives the form, has to fill in—as we probably have all had to do—those who live in the household and are, or are about to become, 18 years old. The Bill states that that person will tick the box to declare that everyone in the household will be excluded from the register. Therefore, people will be excluded without having their say about it.
The working party clearly stated:
"We recommend that the electors should he allowed to decide whether or not their personal details as provided for registration purposes should he included in the register made commercially available. We consider that this requires that the registration form. Form A. should be amended to include information about the purposes to which such information may he put and to allow an opt out box for each person included on the form and for all commercial activities".
As I read the Bill, it is not for each person. The head of household will decide for everyone in the household. Therefore, we shall have to examine that provision because I do not believe that it can be right.
I want to make three brief points before turning to Part II. None of us will quibble about the increase in help for disabled people to vote. We may want to be sure that their ballot papers cannot be identified subsequently at the count, but that is another matter. I am also pleased to see the provision for overseas voters in Schedule 2 remaining without any attempt to reduce the rights of those of our fellow citizens who live and work overseas. Many of them are doing so in the interests of this country and it is right that they should retain their ability and right to vote here.
I also believe that the Government are right to ease the conditions for postal voting. However, in Committee we must look carefully at the protections against impersonation. That will be a serious problem as the number of people with postal votes increases.
I turn to Part II. I have no great objection to experimenting at local elections in order to see whether we can increase the turn-out, but, frankly, I am pretty unconvinced that many of the proposals will have the desired effect.

23
Perhaps I may say to the Government that I should have been much more impressed by their desire to increase turn-out if it were not for the fact that they are preventing candidates for the mayor of London and members of the London assembly from having a free post for delivering leaflets. That right is used by the other place, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. It seems that an electorate which is bigger than the biggest of those—namely, Scotland—has the right to a free post for the candidates who wish to stand.
When we deal with the affirmative orders on these issues the Minister will have to give me a convincing answer to prevent me taking steps to ensure that the Government consider the issue again. I do not know why they have done it. I can assume only that it is a fallback position against Ken winning. If when he wins he says to those at Millbank, "Right, I am the candidate. Let's talk about the campaign budget and the money I'll need to post my election address in the absence of a free post", the answer will come back, "Sorry, sunshine"—or greetings to that effect—"we have a general election to fight and we need all our own money. You go out and find your own".
So poor Ken will be crippled and with a bit of luck his campaign, totally underfinanced, will fail and someone else—anyone else, I am sure St Tony prays— will be elected mayor of London. Are my suspicions right or is there another better reason why mayoral candidates in London are not to be allowed access to the free post?
The Minister told us that a number of local authorities have applied to make changes to this year's local elections. I hope he can share some of those with us in Committee. I have a few brief points to make. First, very comprehensive information of any change will need to be given to the electorate. Special care will be required if any polling takes place on days other than the traditional Thursday. Indeed, I suggest that if we poll over a number of days, initially Thursday must always be included. We in this country are so used and conditioned to the fact that Thursday is polling day that it will be hard to wean us away from that.
Thirdly, the Government should remember the footsoldiers of democracy; the party supporters who man the polling stations, knock people up and, through leaflets and loudspeaking, encourage people to come out and vote. It is difficult enough for them to give up a day to do that—and it is a long day—but when asking them to do it over two or three days one has to consider them.
If polling takes place over more than one day, we cannot have exit polls. We certainly cannot have official ones conducted by the media, but we cannot even have unofficial ones. That may mean that political parties may not be able to ask people how they voted. I can imagine a political party issuing a leaflet on the second day stating, "Our exit poll, which is usually accurate, yesterday showed that X party is nowhere in this game, so give us your vote in order to
24
beat Y party". I have been very careful not to mention the political party which might do that, but I am pretty sure it is sitting to my right in your Lordships' House!
Finally, proof of identity will be needed if polling takes place in different places and at different times. Some effort will be needed on identity.
I have left my most serious reservations about the Bill until last. First, the Bill is almost completely silent on the evaluation of these experiments. I suggest that the only body capable of making such an evaluation is a properly constituted electoral commission. Indeed, such a body should have been in place before we embarked on any of this and its views should have been paramount.
Secondly, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew pointed out, Clause 11 gives powers to the Home Secretary by order to make changes in the way parliamentary elections are run on the basis of his opinion of the results of these local government experiments. I hate to question the Minister about what he said, but I do not read the report of the working party in the same way as he does. The working party does not recommend that these things should be rolled out from local elections to parliamentary elections. However, in the lead-up it states that it believes the time is now right to test alternatives to the present voting arrangements in pilot schemes at local elections. Recommendation 18 states:
"the Secretary of State should be authorised to amend electoral legislation to approve pilot schemes … Pilot schemes would encourage innovation and diversity and offer a real opportunity to see exactly how different approaches can be effective in re-engaging the electorate. Evaluation of such schemes will allow informed judgments to be made as to the effectiveness and security of each new process before a decision is taken to roll it out more widely".
Reading those two together, I read that as local government elections. Nowhere does it say that it should be rolled out more widely to parliamentary elections. Therefore, I do not believe that the Minister can pray in aid the working party when defending Clause 11.
It may be that some of these innovations will prove successful and it may be we should then consider introducing them at parliamentary elections. But that should not be done by secondary legislation, not even of the affirmative kind. Yes, of course we can vote down secondary legislation either here or in the other place, but we cannot scrutinise it in detail and we cannot amend it. Frankly, compared with primary legislation, we cannot give it proper scrutiny.
Changes to our methods of electing the other place are changes to the very foundation stone of our democracy. That spells out primary legislation to me, and I must warn the Government that they will require far, far better arguments than they used in the Commons to persuade me not to take drastic action with regard to Clause 11. In this clause, Henry VIII still lives, alive and well, in the person of Mr Jack Straw. We may need to protect Mr Straw from an action which I believe if proposed by a Conservative government would have him protesting vehemently and doing so rightly, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said.

25
I give two cheers for the Bill, but we shall need to look carefully at the detail. And as to the third cheer, we shall have to wait until Henry VIII is back in the portrait gallery and not in Clause 11.
3.49 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the term, "representation of the people" is one of the most sombre and emotional in our political lexicon. It forms an unbroken chain which begins in this Chamber with the pomp and ceremony of the State Opening of Parliament and ends with a leaflet through a door or a constituency surgery. Without moving away from the thrust of the Bill, I should like to say that last Friday in Cheltenham, my party colleague, County Councillor Andrew Pennington, gave his life in the cause of representation of the people.
It was a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, take 23 minutes to give two cheers to the Bill. Goodness knows how long it would have taken for him to give it three cheers. As always, the noble Lord did not allow himself to be restricted to the Bill itself. We received a grand tour around all his prejudices.
Over the past year a great deal of time has been spent debating the political legitimacy of this House because we lack the direct mandate which the ballot box alone can give. It goes without saying that the House of Commons and local authorities receive their power and legitimacy from the will of the people expressed through the ballot box. The aphorism attributed to Burke (that it is only necessary for good men to do nothing for evil to triumph) remains a constant warning that we must keep the workings of our democracy in good repair. It is certainly true that there is more likelihood of Parliament and local government becoming distorted and unrepresentative of the will of the majority if the. majority do not participate.
In an article written in Parliamentary Affairs, even before the disastrously low turn-out in the European elections to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred—although I must point out that I found the fivefold increase in Liberal Democrat representation in the European Parliament very exciting—Professor David Wilson of de Montfort University wrote:
"In the 1997 General Election only 71.4 per cent of the electorate voted, a post war low. In 1998 turn-out in local elections reached an all-time low with. on average, only 29 per cent of the electorate voting".
He went on to quote a survey relating to all levels of government which concluded:
"British people have clearly become less trusting of their politicians and political institutions in the last two decades. They are also more sceptical about the ability of the system to respond to the demands of de citizenry".
It is that realisation which has brought the Government and the Liberal Democrats to bring forward in Parliament a number of interlocking reforms to try to refresh our democracy. I make no party political point that the disillusionment referred to by Professor Wilson took place while a Conservative government were in power. I believe that this is a worry for all democrats. Any one who has been
26
involved in politics knows that there is a level of cynicism out there and that we need to experiment and to attempt to try and re-engage the people.
Both politicians and commentators have worried about the lower turn-out and lower participation. I look forward to the observations of my noble friend Lord Rennard in his maiden speech. He is a recognised practitioner in the black arts of getting out the vote, as both Conservative and Labour have found to their cost at by-elections.
Not all is doom and gloom, however. The 20 years which have seen a growth in disenchantment with the political parties have also seen a growth in single issue campaigning by pressure groups. The distinguished political commentator, Peter Kellner, has pointed out that at least some of the disparity in turn-out between today and the immediate post-war period can be explained by greater mobility, to which both the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and the Minister referred, and by the lowering of the voting age to 18. As the Bill recognises, the old registers simply have not been able to keep up with our more mobile population.
As regards the attitudes of young voters, my eyes were caught by an article in the Saturday edition of the Daily Telegraph, which stated:
"Research cited by the British Youth Council shows that in the 1997 election only 68 per cent of registered 18–24 year olds voted and, of the whole potential electorate, only 59 per cent of the 18–24 age group voted. Those under 26 make up about 10 per cent of Labour's membership and 5 per cent of Liberal Democrats. There were half a million Young Conservatives in 1951—now there are fewer than 10.000".
I can already see some misty eyes on the Conservative Benches at memories of Young Conservative functions in the 1950s. I am not sure how much politics came into the popularity of the Young Conservatives at that time. As I recall, many of my contemporaries used to join the Conservative Club because it had the best snooker tables and go to Young Conservative dances because they had the most young ladies present.
However, whatever our collective memory, there is, I believe, a collective gratitude to the Howarth committee for a job well done. The Bill seeks to give effect to the working party's recommendations and as such is welcome as a constructive attempt to revitalise our politics.
Obviously, there are areas where in Committee we shall probe deeply. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Goodhart to raise a number of those issues in his speech later in the debate. However, Clause 9 has already been mentioned on a number of occasions. I understand that tomorrow the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, will sponsor a meeting of concerned organisations to allow them to put their views. These points will need more thorough examination in Committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has said, representations have been received from the CBI, the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers, the Direct Marketing Association, and others about the availability of the electoral register. The Minister

27
called in aid fears of stalking and domestic violence. Certainly these are serious matters and should be looked at.
However, I am not so convinced on the question of junk mail. I think to offer to people, "Come off the register and you won't get junk mail", is too much of a soft option. Frankly, the various points made by the Minister to reassure the House made me fear that we might end up with a mishmash as regards the electoral register. That would take away the integrity of the full register. I think that we must return to this matter in Committee. We shall listen to representations from outside bodies and bring forward amendments to discover how effective this proposal will be.
As I have already said, my noble friend Lord Rennard was a distinguished member of the Howarth committee and I look forward to his maiden speech shortly. My noble friend Lord Goodhart will indicate other areas of the Bill in which we shall seek to probe further, not least the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, on Clause 11.
I conclude by making three general0points. The Bill concerns the mechanics of representation of the people and does some technical things which may—I concede the word "may" to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay— help turn-out and encourage voting. I disagree with the Minister that the Bill will take us from the 19th century to the 21st century. I believe that it probably takes us only from the 19th to the 20th century. Technology is already galloping ahead. I noticed an article in The Times concerning electioneering in the United States. It stated:
"This year's US presidential election is increasingly being fought on the Internet, with more than half the nation logging on to the candidates' ferocious and competitive websites. Millions of campaign dollars have been raised via the Net, and in some states it will be possible to vote online".
I believe that technology is already racing ahead of us even as we legislate. However, I am encouraged by today's Evening Standard which says that the Conservative Party is now on the Internet with "tory.org". Indeed, Mr Tim Richardson has already registered on the Internet the name "sleaze@tory.org". One can see that some progress has been made at Central Office.
However, the Bill is still about old politics in that it barely recognises the impact that the digital revolution and the Internet will have on our politics and democracy. Of course, it ignores the obvious advance in representation of the people which could be furthered by a system of fair voting at local government. My colleagues and I shall consider later whether or not we shall help the House by tabling an amendment to suggest that. There is no doubt that many of our council chambers would benefit from proportional representation.
As I said, in many ways this is a small Bill, but it is a welcome attempt to improve the representation of the people. However, much more needs to be done. I end
28
by again quoting Professor Wilson in his article in Parliamentary Affairs:
"The Blair Government is keen that councils actively promote public participation; the same government is encouraging local executive leadership and has retained extensive powers for itself at the centre, especially in the financial sphere. In this context it is possible to argue that advocacy of more participation is simply an exercise in chasing shadows".
That may be an over-pessimistic view both of the intentions of the Government and of this legislation. In any event, we shall do our best in Committee to diminish the shadows and to add to the substance of the Bill so that, as the Minister said, it prepares our democracy for the century ahead.
4.1 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I welcome the Bill, which deals with the nitty-gritty and mechanics of elections—something that we do not often talk about in this Chamber. However, I particularly welcome the Bill because in 1991 in my previous existence as a member of the Plant Commission—I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Plant is participating in the Bill—I was a major participant in the writing of Part II of the commission's report, entitled Voter Participation. The small group that drew up that section of the report was chaired by my late friend Lord Underhill. I regret that he is not here to take his share of the credit for proposing what were seen at the time as almost revolutionary changes to our electoral practices.
The majority of the 37 proposals which we made are, at least in principle, if not in detail, included in the Bill or in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, currently being considered in the other place. Those 37 proposals—remember that this was in 1991—covered a rolling register, absent voting, access to polling stations, timing of the poll (including early voting), weekend voting—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that I appreciate that it was necessary to have weekend voting—mobile polling stations, a maximum on national election expenses and the establishment of an electoral commission.
Even then, there had been a developing consensus, of which the noble Lord, Lord Rennard—whose maiden speech I look forward to—was a part, that there needed to be change. That consensus, which included all the representatives of the major parties, is reflected in this Bill. It was unfortunate that the last government did not listen to their representatives; for example, in a debate on electoral registration on 25 May 1995 I received a negative response to requests for such a review of electoral procedures.
Therefore, I welcome the speed of introduction of this Bill, which goes some way to removing obstacles and barriers to voting and changing many of our outdated Victorian rules and procedures. That is not to decry the past. We were one of the first countries to provide a free electoral system and secret ballots, and we removed bribery and limited election expenses at constituency level. However, if we are to widen democratic participation—certainly, I do not believe that it is pious to try—we must develop not only new

29
forms of electioneering, which all the political parties are doing, but be more open and fair, make access to voting easier and use processes that are not rooted in the pre-computer age.
When new initiatives were considered in the past, one of the problems was that the ideas were purely theoretical. The concept of using pilots overcomes that problem. Only by using real elections and by real voting can the initiatives be tested. However, it means that our plans must be foolproof and workable and that the integrity of the poll is not compromised.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on the question of exit polls. In 1992 when postal voters were questioned about how they were going to vote, the findings were declared before the election day. Therefore, I believe that the issue of exit polls is terribly important. Equally, I believe that, if we are going to change the dates of voting, it is important that we have voting both on Saturday and Sunday so that we do not prevent anyone voting for religious reasons.
With regard to electronic voting, which without doubt is the way forward, we must ensure the resilience and effectiveness of the technology. A mechanical failure would be a disaster. Similarly, there must be safeguards against impersonation and hackers and, more importantly, there must be equality of access.
In the United States, a pilot scheme is being conducted for the presidential elections to allow service voters to cast their vote via the Internet. The outcome will be interesting. Voting on the Internet is certainly one possible option for the future, as might be digital voting or even using National Lottery terminals. Somehow it seems a little farcical that it is easier to buy a lottery ticket and to have that recorded than it is to register a vote. A group within the Electoral Reform Society is currently looking at the consequences of electronic voting. We shall await its findings with interest.
I sincerely hope that the pilots will be successful and that many of the new techniques can be rolled out nationally' for parliamentary elections, as proposed in Clause 11. However, before that happens, I should like the Minister to guarantee that there will be an opportunity for debate and scrutiny, not only in both Houses but also among the political parties and particularly among the practitioners.
In the report on voter participation, which I mentioned earlier, it was suggested tentatively that postal voting should be available for all. I do not believe that we ever imagined that it would really happen. We also called for necessary, and now accepted, simplification of the process. The proportion of postal votes currently rejected is too high at about 3.5 per cent. compared with 1 per cent of spoiled papers cast in the polling station. I am sure that that is due to the complexity of the current procedures. However, it was disappointing that the closing date for applications was to be too early—the eleventh working day before the election. Therefore, it is encouraging that the Government have listened to the views in the other place and have reduced that to the sixth working
30
day before elections. With modern technology, and now that EROs no longer have to consider the criteria for application, surely it should be possible to meet that new deadline.
On proxy voting, I make only one point. History has shown how any extension is a potential for malpractice. I was pleased to hear that there would be no extension to proxy voting in the Bill.
All that is fine, but the key to increasing participation must be improved registration: no registration, no vote. For some time the state of the electoral register has shown a significant democratic deficit. It is estimated that approximately 2 million people fail to register, even though there is a legal obligation to do so. However, the official figure understates the true extent of the problem as it fails to take account of double registration or the estimation that 7 per cent of the electors are allocated wrongly to particular addresses.
The barriers to people claiming their vote are many. Levels are low in bedsitter-land, among black communities, young people, those who are mobile from choice and those who have to move home for personal or work reasons. The current lack of flexibility means that the register is out of date even before it is published.
That brings me to the proposal for a rolling register, something for which many of us have campaigned for a long time. That will undoubtedly end the absurd situation referred to by the Minister where at present people can wait up to 16 months after moving house before they can appear on the new register. It will be a considerable step forward if that really can, as has been suggested, be reduced to six weeks or less. However, while I believe that we are making a step forward, only time will tell whether further refinements are required to ensure maximum registration.
As the debate has already shown, the most contentious issue in this Bill must be the decision to produce two forms of the electoral register and to give electors the choice as to which one they go on. That provision is contained in Clause 9. But that will be an extremely difficult circle to square: how to balance the requirements of business and charities, which use the electoral register as an integral part of their marketing armoury, with the privacy and security of individuals.
The consultation by the Howarth working group showed that all business sectors considered that any limiting of access to the full register would have adverse implications for their business. Charities also reported that they would find it more difficult to focus fund-raising and membership. The CBI calls on the Government to have only one register, as now, but makes no suggestion at all as to how to overcome the fact that new interactive search software means that more and more people are becoming vulnerable to the unwanted publication of their details. Abused spouses and those escaping from domestic violence must be protected. Surely it must be wrong also for people to be legally obliged to register to vote and then have their whereabouts passed, without consent, to a third party.

31
Account must be taken also of the new data protection requirements for greater control of personal information and customer choice.
In its briefing ISBA suggests that it has a workable scheme which satisfies all, and I look forward to hearing how it has squared that circle. It suggests also that consumers will receive more unsolicited mail by opting out. I am afraid that I do not understand that at all and I look forward to hearing how that will work. But my concern has been for the position of an elector who has ticked the relevant box—and every elector should have that right—but whose circumstances have changed and who requires credit. So I was pleased to hear the Minister's remarks on that point. As has been said, I am sure that we shall return to that matter in Committee.
Crucially important is the extension of the franchise to the homeless, remand prisoners and mental patients. It corrects the anomaly which disenfranchises about 10,000 people, people who are not barred from voting under the Mental Health Act 1983 but who cannot register while in hospital.
I believe also that the Government should be congratulated on finding a way of enabling homeless people to exercise their democratic right. However, there are concerns that the declaration of local connections will encourage double voting, particularly in by-elections. Having talked to many EROs, I am sure that those concerns are over-exaggerated. But I believe that the Minister, Mr O'Brien, was right to indicate that he will look further at the position in relation to by-elections and the question of tactical voting.
Clearly, extending the franchise and changing the ways of registering will succeed only if local authorities and national government carry out their full mandatory duty to ensure maximum registration by full canvassing of the electors and providing effective local and national publicity.
In conclusion, in spite of the guidance referred to by the Minister, there are still too many polling stations with poor access; which are badly situated; and where no account is taken of the needs of the disabled. While I understand the difficulties in making standards mandatory, it is necessary for minimum standards to be set and incorporated in new and consolidated guidelines which would clearly be in line with Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
Assistance for the blind and partially sighted by the production of large-print posters and the provision of templates to assist voting is another important breakthrough. But all those changes should be accompanied by the training of all staff, from the ERO to the teller in the polling station and all those involved in the voting process, in awareness of the new rules and in the difficulties faced by older and disabled people and the assistance they can give.
There are many reasons why people do not vote. Lack of interest in the political process, voter apathy, deliberate abstention are reasons which cannot be solved by this Bill. But this Bill will ensure that many
32
of the administrative obstacles will be removed; it will make it easier to vote; and it will bring our electoral law into line with modern lifestyles and behaviour.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Rennard: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships' House for the first time. On my introduction last summer, I was, for a brief period, the youngest-ever life Peer taking the Liberal Democrat Whip. However, my relative youth increases the sense of honour that I feel in joining your Lordships in this great and historic House.
The generosity of the welcome extended to me—and in this debate—has felt quite remarkable to someone who is much more experienced in the fierce rivalry between parties and candidates at election time. That is especially so given the role which I have played in enabling a number of your Lordships to enter this House at an earlier point in their career than they had intended. I hope that the comforts of the House will assist the noble Lords concerned in forgiving me my role. I refer, of course, to my responsibility for my party's general election campaigns in constituencies such as Harrogate and Northavon.
Even though I hope for a different and more democratic second Chamber in future, that does not detract from my appreciation of the distinction of many Members of your Lordships' House whose knowledge, experience and wisdom gives this House an effective and valued role.
I must acknowledge also that all of us here are well served by the excellent and efficient attendants and other staff, whom I also sincerely thank for their help and guidance. Whatever may happen to this House in future, I hope that the standards of courtesy, the willingness to listen to rational and reasonable debate, and the freedom to follow individual conscience will be preserved.
I am very proud indeed to come from the city of Liverpool. It is my home area of that city, Wavertree, that I included in my formal title. Wavertree was where I began my involvement with politics, delivering some of the first Focus leaflets produced by the then Liberal Party. As a small boy, I delivered to the houses once occupied by George Harrison and John Lennon. I also sang in the church choir down the road from where Paul McCartney sang in his church choir. At Holy Trinity, we were supposed to be a better choir so I suppose I could have been a better Beatle. But my career followed a different path.
Liverpool gave me a very political upbringing, but I cannot say that many of the issues in the Representation of the People Bill are those which drew me into politics. In my teens, I never imagined that my burning political concerns, such as the right of every person of whatever race to be able to vote in South Africa or for democratic principles to be established in eastern Europe, would lead to me arguing one day in this House for the right of people in Britain to be able to vote in a Tesco supermarket. However, my experience as a young party agent, including a time when I was responsible for the election to another

33
place of my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, taught me much about the importance of safeguards to democracy.
Election laws must protect the democratic process from any party or individual seeking to abuse it. The rules for the conduct of elections must be fair to all parties and individuals, making it easy for voters to participate. They should be based on as much consensus as is possible. Most of the provisions in the Bill are based on agreement reached by the Howarth working party, on which my friend and colleague, David Loxton, served. It included representatives of all the main parties, and local authority electoral administration experts. It was concerned that in Great Britain we have the lowest turn-outs for local elections of any country in the European Union. So measures to make it easier to vote while ensuring safeguards against fraud are to be welcomed. Whether or not they address the real reasons for such a low turn-out is, however, another matter.
I believe that disillusionment with the political process, the inability of local authorities to make real improvements to many neighbourhoods, and the lack of connection between a vote and the representation which results, are all likely to be more significant factors.
Nevertheless, it must be particularly welcome that some measures in this Bill will make it easier for disabled people to vote. Some years before I was old enough to vote, I used to take my late mother to vote in her wheelchair. Although she would have been entitled to vote by post, she wanted to be able to vote on the same day and in the same way as everybody else. Once in the polling station, she was able to cast her vote unaided, but there are many sighted disabled people who are not able to vote without the assistance of a friend. It is right, therefore, that they will be able to call on such assistance in future, just as blind people are already able to do so.
For all voters, the time has now come when they should be entitled to choose to vole by post. Postal vote entitlement was once very restrictive and based on health or employment grounds. Application forms had to be witnessed by doctors, magistrates or employers. Applications to vote by post in a particular election can now be made on the basis of being away on polling day or working late, and no element of certification is required.It seems logical, therefore, to acknowledge that people can vote by post if they want to do so.
It also makes sense to allow applications to be made by letter or fax without the cumbersome process of obtaining the correct official form and returning it in the very tight timetable allowed for a parliamentary election or a council by-election. I remain to be convinced, however, that enabling people to vote in supermarkets for some days prior to polling day will make much difference to turn-out. I witnessed an experiment of that nature in Texas during the last United States presidential election. Subsequent turnout was only one or two per cent higher despite the fact that the polling station, in a large shopping mall, was open for a fortnight prior to polling day.
34
That process added greatly to the cost of conducting the election but it is, nevertheless, something which I think should be tried in more places here. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is really hoping that there will be a boost to sales of his groceries if polling stations are opened in his supermarkets; experiments will show.
Of more significance to boosting turn-out in elections are the proposals for improving the accuracy of the electoral register. The inaccuracy of the register has been a growing concern for a number of years and has been raised a number of times by Mr Harry Barnes in another place. He has rightly pointed to the inadequacy of the efforts of many local authorities to canvass properly in order to ensure that the register is accurate. A proper canvass to collate information for the register is much more likely to include those people for whom English is not their first language.
The rolling register is another important principle.It cannot be right that somebody who moves house in October or November is unable to vote from that address at any election for the next 15 or 16 months until a new register takes effect. Similarly, people who die or move away should be removed from the register. That will reduce risks of personation.
There may, of course, be other ways of increasing voter turn-out. Last summer I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I was asked my attitude towards compulsory voting. I replied simply that my view was that politicians are unpopular enough without fining people who do not vote for them.
I am grateful for the opportunity which this debate has given to me and I look forward to being an active Member of your Lordships' House.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, in this building over a good many years it has been my pleasure to congratulate a number of Members on making their maiden speeches. However, today is the first time I have had the pleasure of doing so in your Lordships' House. I have particular pleasure in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on a distinguished maiden speech.
The noble Lord has a distinguished record as a Liberal Party agent and later as an organiser of by-elections. He reminded us—perhaps for some of us rather regretfully—of some of his past successes. Certainly, some of the innovations he has helped to develop have become more and more standard practice in all parties. He did not tell us whether he was engaged in the Richmond, Yorkshire, by-election in the late 1980s. I see that the noble Lord nods. I am glad for that indication as that was the only by-election in which I have been involved for the past 15 years. I am glad to say that it was a Conservative victory. I was the candidate's "minder" during that by-election. However, I have always made clear that the success of the Conservative Party was due more to the candidate, one William Hague, than to the "minder" who played a minor part in that success.

35
The noble Lord approached the debate with greater background knowledge than almost any of your Lordships sitting in the House today when they made their maiden speeches. He is clearly a great expert in this subject. Although he must have been tempted to be otherwise, I am glad to say that he was both brief and uncontroversial. We look forward to hearing from him frequently in the future.
In thinking of the background of the noble Lord as a party organiser, perhaps I may say that in all our minds today are the tragic events in Cheltenham over the weekend. I am sure that on all sides of the House we want to express our sympathy to the Liberal Party and to the individuals and families who grieve at this time.
I turn to the Bill. My guess is that all of your Lordships and Members of the other place will be united in our objectives over the issue of representation of the people; namely, first, to enable the electorate to both register and cast their votes; and, secondly, to take all possible steps to eliminate abuse.
Registering has already been mentioned, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. It is extremely important that people register. Not enough people realise that it is an offence not to do so. As I understand it, a maximum fine of £1,000 can be imposed. One can perhaps understand how in the past people thought they could escape the poll tax or jury service by not registering. However, there are few incentives now for not doing so.
In the past I have been somewhat irritated when confronted by boarding schools, both private and state, in which management was, frankly, too idle to register pupils who would become 18 during the subsequent year. I always found that a reminder that failing to do so is illegal and that parents would not be keen to have a fine of up to £1,000 imposed for not registering quickly resulted in a change of attitude.
However, in order to persuade more people to register, I would personally welcome a few more highly publicised prosecutions of people who have not done so. The problem is that efforts to make registration and voting easier often go hand-in-hand with opportunities for abuse. I am concerned about the Bill as it stands with regard to votes for homeless people. I do not think that noble Lords would begrudge votes for homeless people; they are perfectly entitled to vote. However, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mackay, the proposals open the door for abuse. How can one know whether or not a name on the register without a fixed address and merely showing a local connection is genuine? Being able to register a name with just a local connection could lead to massive abuse. How could we know that people are who they say they are or that they have local connections when they say that they inhabit squats or shop doorways?
I hope that the matter can be addressed when we come to the Committee stage. I should like to see homeless people being required under the Bill to provide documentary evidence of their identity when they vote. The Bill should also incorporate a ban on
36
multiple registrations by people with no address. Those making such registrations should have to declare at the same time all the areas in which they intend to make such registrations. That may overcome the serious anxieties held by many people in relation to the abuses that may arise if we open the door to allowing people with no address to vote.
I have anxieties also about some aspects of the proposed pilot schemes. I may not command a majority of your Lordships in my view that extending the voting period over several days is ridiculous. I have always wondered whether it was necessary for polling stations to stay open until nine or 10 o'clock in the evening. Relatively little voting takes place at that time and those who do vote could probably vote earlier. Bearing in mind that the votes are counted throughout the night, it would help—I cannot see that it would do any damage and I am sure that there would be just as good a turnout—if polling stations closed at nine.
I was pleased when the Minister said that it may be possible to reduce from 11 to six working days the period in which applications may be made for postal votes. I have fought 10 general elections in my life. I always felt it was wrong that people could not apply for postal votes at the beginning of the campaign. I am sure that all those with experience of another place will have experienced being told during campaigns, "I shall vote for you, but I shall have to apply for a postal vote". We then have to say, "I am sorry, but the last day for applications was last Tuesday".
We are to have rolling registers. It seems to me that that can only come about through the use of computers and information technology. The same is true if people are to be able to vote at any polling station in the constituency. I hope it will be possible, therefore, to reduce the six days. Many people miss their vote because they do not realise how early they have to apply for a postal vote if they are to be away on business or whatever. Also, it may be helpful, when somebody applies to be put on the register, if it is to be done electronically, for them to say where they previously registered. That could then be cancelled at the same time as the new information appears.
Finally, I share the anxieties voiced abut the possibility of selling the register to commercial firms and the difficulty that that causes with people opting out. When I came into your Lordships' Chamber I saw for the first time a letter from ISBA—the voice of British advertisers, an organisation of which I have little knowledge—one section of which talks about that difficulty. Many of your Lordships may have seen it. It says:
"Significantly even those people who have registered with the Mailing Preference Service to avoid receiving direct marketing mail shots will get more unwanted mail of the blanket mailing variety. Advertisers are sure we can help with a workable scheme, which answers the Home Office concerns as well as our practical objections".
I hope the Minister will take that to heart and undertake on behalf of the Government that they will take the matter seriously and see whether these disagreements can be met.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, whose maiden speech was much appreciated—particularly his backward glance at Beatlemania—I do not have a formidable reputation in relation to voting at elections. Nevertheless, I am delighted to have the opportunity to make a few comments in relation to the Representation of the People Bill before the House today.
My comments will be brief; in fact they are confined to Clause 13, which addresses the issue of assistance with voting for people with learning disabilities. In spite of my vested interest, I do not propose to comment on whether or not the full register should be available to charities. As the president of Mencap I should support that move, but as a long-suffering householder I should be pleased to see the diminution of my daily junk mail, generally incorrectly addressed; for example, Air Vice-Marshal Rix; Lord CBE DL; Mr B Lord and, only last Saturday, Mr Trix. I fear that that diminution will not occur because charities and direct mail houses will merely step up their sale of lists to one another and the flood will continue.
Reforms to the electoral system unsurprisingly generate much interest among parliamentarians in another place, though Members of your Lordships' House may have a more direct interest in the matter following the recent ballots and speculation about the shape of things to come. It may be a trite point to make, but voting does matter, not only to those who want to express their views within our parliamentary democracy. In politics itself we are—as I am sure your Lordships agree—failing disabled people. The charity Scope is leading the way in research in this field. Its Polls Apart surveys revealed that 88 per cent of polling stations were inaccessible to disabled people. This denies disabled people one of the most fundamental expressions of citizenship within a democracy. So I am delighted that this Bill will offer assistance with voting for people with disabilities.
It is often assumed that people with learning disabilities cannot make informed choices and that they would not want to get involved in voting, but that assumption is clearly incorrect. People with learning disabilities are increasingly playing a full role in community life, whether that is through employment, through representation on local committees and public bodies—for example, someone with a learning disability on the Disability Rights Commission—or through leisure activities. There is a strong and powerful self-advocacy movement in this country which should be 'harnessed and developed. People are increasingly having a say and demanding more of a say in the way in which services are run which impact upon their lives. Democracy is important to everyone.
Another common assumption is that people with learning disabilities are not allowed on the electoral roll. Again, this is untrue. But what often is true is that people with learning disabilities require the assistance of another person for support in understanding electoral procedure, or in helping to read the ballot
38
paper. This is not to tell the person which way to vote, but to provide impartial support to enable the individual to exercise his choice. I shall be delighted if the Minister is able to assure me that the provisions in Clause 13, which relate to support for people who are unable to read, will apply to people who are unable to read on account of a learning disability. I would also welcome assurance that, where people are unable to secure appropriate support for themselves, the services of an advocate will be offered.
Under the new proposals it is the presiding officer who determines whether a person is incapable of voting without assistance. I would urge government to issue clear guidance to presiding officers in exercising this judgment. I believe that all presiding officers should undertake thorough disability equality training. Perhaps I may also stress the importance of accessible voter education, so that people are empowered to exercise their civil rights whenever possible. Mencap regularly publishes information on "how to vote" in general and in local elections, but more could be done on a national scale.
Mencap has undertaken a large amount of developmental work in this area following our recent National Assembly elections in which people with learning disabilities have had an equal vote in determining Mencap's constitution. One of the key challenges in that process was how to communicate relatively complex information about the election process to voters with a wide range of intellectual capabilities. One issue was whether to produce two election packs—one in a simplified form—or whether to produce one version, which everyone would understand. Mencap chose the latter, supplemented by information on audio tape. The pack was produced in an accessible form in plain English with illustrations, so that those with a poor standard of literacy could understand the basic concepts. Perhaps the Home Office would consider a similar approach so that no one is denied an opportunity to vote through lack of information. Mencap would be pleased to discuss with the department all its findings in this particular matter.
I shall not detain the House any further on the issue today, but look forward to hearing the Minister's remarks when he replies. If needs be, I will return to Clause 13 in Committee to resolve any outstanding matters. However, I am hopeful that I shall hear all the right words from the Dispatch Box in about an hour's time.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rix, because he hails from Hull. I now teach at the University of Hull and I note that I shall be followed today by the noble Lord, Lord Plant, who took his PhD at that university. However, I believe that I should be out of order if I drew attention to other Hull graduates whom I see in the vicinity.
I rise to reiterate and develop some of the points that have already been made by my noble friends. As is clear from the Long Title of the Bill, this is essentially

39
a Bill with two principal purposes. The first is to ensure a more effective electoral register, ensuring that more people register to vote, and the second is to ensure that, once registered, people exercise their right to vote.
As we have heard, the problem of non-registration and of low turn-out, especially in local elections, is well established. I do not propose to repeat the figures in that respect. But anything that addresses those problems is to be welcomed.
This is a serious Bill in seeking to address those problems. I welcome many of the provisions. However, like some of my noble friends, I want to raise a note of caution about the procedure to be adopted for pilot schemes. I know that concerns have already been raised in another place. I should also like to raise a note of caution, as mentioned by some noble Lords, about what we may expect from changes to voting procedures. There is the danger of focusing too much on process and not enough on voters' motivations for voting.
As we have already heard, the Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to approve proposals from local authorities for pilot schemes. If the Secretary of State believes that such schemes should then be implemented on a national basis, he can lay a statutory instrument to give effect to it. The Bill is silent in terms of substance. By that, I mean that we know the process to be employed, but we do not know what schemes will be involved. We know from the White Paper the sort of schemes that are likely to be tried: mobile polling, early voting, voting anywhere in the electoral area, changing the day of voting, and electronic voting. However, none of these schemes appears on the face of the Bill, so the only time that Parliament will be guaranteed an opportunity to consider them is when a statutory instrument is brought forward under the affirmative resolution procedure.
This is not the occasion to dwell on the limitations of our procedures for considering delegated legislation; indeed, we considered them recently. However, like my noble friend Lord Mackay, I think that there is a case for requiring approval through primary legislation. As my noble friend mentioned, the reasons are twofold. The first is the greater opportunity for discussion but the other, which is particularly important, is the fact that primary legislation allows the opportunity for amendment, which we do not have with statutory instruments. That is particularly important in the context of what may be proposed here.
So much for how we should consider such schemes. I turn now to the intended effect of the pilot schemes. The motivation is admirable. It is to enable people to vote. The White Paper noted that there were high levels of support for some new initiatives. However, asking people whether they believe that a scheme is a good idea is not the same as asking them whether it will affect their own behaviour. The Minister will be aware of the MORI poll carried out in 1998 for the Local Government Association. It asked respondents whether particular schemes would make them more or
40
less likely to vote in local elections. It found that some schemes—but only some—would engender a greater propensity to vote among certain sections of the population. Interestingly, voting by telephone would have a greater effect than voting on the Internet. Moving the polling day to a Sunday would, on the basis of the poll, have a neutral effect.
Two things emerge from the poll. First, that some pilot schemes are worth trying—I am not arguing against them—and, secondly, that one should not raise one's expectations too high. Some schemes may make a difference. In some cases, the difference may be marked, but there is a danger of putting too much weight on their potential to deliver a high turn-out in elections.
Indeed, I believe that there is the danger of ignoring the real problem. The Green Paper, Modernising Local Government, noted that changes to the voting system were not a panacea for current weaknesses in local government. People do not usually stay at home in local elections because of problems with the process of voting. The MORI poll in 1998 asked about voting in local elections. The percentage of respondents saying that they did not know where local elections were held or where the polling station was, or saying that the location of the polling station was inconvenient, was extraordinarily small. We are talking about less than 4 per cent in each case. People were more likely to say that they did not believe that voting made a difference. If people do not believe that voting makes a difference, there is little incentive to vote, regardless of how convenient or efficient the method of voting.
We need to explore more fundamentally the reasons for non-voting. I think that there is the danger of embarking on changes—not only to the election process but also to the structure of local government— without having considered whether they are really addressing the nub of the problem. Should we not be looking, for example, at how to strengthen political parties in local elections? There is evidence that electioneering by competing parties pushes up turnout. Should we be seeking ways, then, of revitalising parties? I do not believe that this is the occasion to go into great detail on this. However, I think that it is important to stress that we should be looking beyond voting methods—and, indeed, beyond the structure of local government—in order to tackle the problem of low turn-out.
I turn to two other issues that concern me. Under the provisions for a pilot scheme, the authority undertaking the scheme is required to make a report that states whether in its opinion,
"the procedures provided for by the scheme led to any increase in personation or other electoral offences".
That is fine but what about personation or other electoral offences under the existing arrangements? The Bill, I think, is something of a lost opportunity in not strengthening the integrity of the electoral process. The present method of registration requires only the signature of the head of the household on the annual registration form. There is no requirement to provide evidence of identity at a polling booth. The clerk has to accept that you are who you say you are. If you are

41
registered in more than one constituency, there is no effective or systematic way of checking that you have not voted in more than one place.
At Committee stage of the Bill in another place, the Minister, George Howarth, conceded that no systematic checks are carried out to establish the incidence of double voting. He said that he did not believe that there was evidence of widespread systematic abuse. There may not be widespread systematic abuse, but we do not know that, since, as the Minister said, no systematic study had been carried out. It is, I must confess, a somewhat circular argument to say, as the Minister appeared to be saying, that we have not looked and, amazingly, we have not found anything.
The Minister said that with improvements in technology it would be possible to improve the means of checking. However, what about introducing mechanisms to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process now? Why not require every elector to sign the electoral registration form each year and require each elector to sign against their name in the electoral register when they go to the polling booth? It would help to provide some protection against both personation and double voting. It would not be foolproof but it would ensure greater integrity than exists at present.
My other concern has been touched on, but I suspect that I shall take a. slightly different line from what has been said so far. I refer to the sale of the electoral register for commercial purposes. I am uneasy about allowing the register to be available for sale. I know that it is a well-established practice. I know the arguments in favour of making it available. The working party considered the issue at some length, concluding that,
"In the wider economic interest of the United Kingdom, it would be wrong wholly to withdraw electoral registration data from use commercially".
I appreciate the economic arguments for maintaining the present arrangement. I recognise the objection raised by the CBI to Clause 9. The CBI says that it does not support any limitation on the general availability of the electoral register. Well, I am afraid that I do. As I say, I appreciate that there is an economic case for allowing the sale of the register. However, I have a principled objection to personal data, required by Act of Parliament, being sold to third parties, with electors who supply the data having no control over its use. I appreciate that there is a case for some organisations having access to it for purposes of l aw enforcement, and for political parties to have access to it for election purposes, but I treat such access as distinct from access derived from the sale of the register to bodies that seek to make financial profit from having such access.
The Bill seeks to address the problem and to bring the position into line with modern data protection practice and with Council of Europe recommendation R(91)10 concerning personal data held by public bodies. I acknowledge that the Bill constitutes a serious attempt to address a difficult problem. As the working party noted, there is no simple solution that is likely to be accept able to everyone. However, I am not
42
sure that Clause 9 is quite the right way to tackle the problem. My initial thought—that is all it is—is that there should be limited access to the full register rather than a full and an edited register, with the latter being available for commercial purchase.
The working party noted some anecdotal evidence that the sale of the register may discourage some people from registering to vote but said that such research as there is indicates that the overall impact on registration levels may not be significant. I am sure that at the moment it is not significant. One should not be surprised by that. I am fairly sure that most people are completely unaware that the electoral register is available for sale. Now, under the provisions of the Bill, electors will be made aware of that fact. I suspect that it will come as a shock to many. We need to be aware of that.
I end with an objection to the commencement provisions in Clause 6. I think that there is a case for reviewing commencement clauses. I have touched on the general point before in your Lordships' House. If Parliament passes legislation, it should be brought into force immediately on Royal Assent or else on a date specified by Parliament. Too often, too much power is given to Ministers to decide when a particular provision approved by Parliament should take effect. Clause 6(3) is a good example of what I object to. I shall look forward to the Minister providing a compelling explanation for the provisions of the commencement clause. No explanation is provided in the Explanatory Notes which simply state that this is the commencement clause.
The Bill attempts to address serious problems. I welcome that. However, we need to look wider than the provisions of the Bill to address fully some of those problems, especially non-voting. I think that there may be a case for strengthening, or taking further, some of the provisions. On the whole, I welcome what is in the Bill. What concerns me is what it omits.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to have heard the striking maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Speaking from these Benches, given his compelling record as a deliverer of the Liberal Democrat vote in by-elections, we can only hope that his party keeps him well occupied in your Lordships' House, which may constrain his activities outside to some extent! It would be in the interests of a number of parties in the House if that were to happen.
It is also a great pleasure to follow my friend and intermittent colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I follow him also in his point, which has been made by a number of noble Lords; namely, that this is a useful Bill but we should not claim too much for it. It concerns procedures. Those procedures are important. There is nothing more important in a democracy than elections. It is important that we make our procedures right and make them appropriate for the time in which they are operated. However, I do not think that we should expect an enormous amount to follow from them, important though they are.

43
There are many worrying features about democratic politics in modern British society. There are low turnouts at all levels in by-elections for Parliament, in European elections and in local elections under both first-past-the-post in by-elections and PR systems for the European elections. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, there are some general worries about the motivation of electors and so forth. There is also the rise of pressure groups, single issue pressure groups, focus groups and so forth, as ways of displacing primary concern with representative democracy. Therefore it is important that we take seriously a whole range of matters in this area and election procedures are part of that. As I said, we should certainly make sure that they are right. It seems to me that part of that process of making them right means first of all ensuring that people are able to claim their democratic rights easily; secondly, that as many people as possible are enfranchised by electoral arrangements; thirdly, the need to facilitate voting for those with difficulties, particularly those who are disabled or have learning difficulties and so forth, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has eloquently mentioned; and the need to make the procedures of voting as user friendly as possible.
Obviously central to all this is the electoral register as it is the necessary condition of being able to exercise one's right to vote. I agree strongly with the proposed rolling register. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the late Lord Underhill deserve enormous credit for bringing the Labour Party round to an interest in electoral procedures of this kind and for getting the issue of the rolling register on the agenda. This will perhaps turn out to be the most significant issue in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, had it more or less right when he spoke about the purchase of the register. I can see the obvious commercial value of the register and, as president of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, I can see its value to charities and voluntary groups. On the other hand, it is one of the few documents under our constitutional system which gives an individual a sense of being a citizen, of belonging to a political community and of having rights derived from being on the register. It is a basic democratic document.
It is right that the document should be used, for example, in the prosecution and prevention of criminal activity—such as fraud and so on—because such activities undermine citizenship rights. However, it should not be a marketing tool, as the CBI states that it is in its paper, which noble Lords have received over the past few days. If there are major disadvantages in not being on the register which will be available to commercial firms, those disadvantages should be spelt out on the form which electors will have to fill in when they decide whether they want to be a part of the full register or a part of the edited register. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, is right; the information required by statute should be basic to citizenship—and one of the rights of citizenship is privacy. The register should not
44
be seen as a commercial document to be bought and sold. All its disadvantages can be dealt with in other ways.
Against that background of not having over-optimistic expectations but none the less seeing the electoral register issues as being absolutely fundamental, I certainly support the other proposals in the Bill. I welcome the proposals that will make registration easier for members of the Armed Forces, for remand prisoners and for the homeless. I have some worries about the homeless category—not so much for the reasons raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, although they are important and will have to be looked at in Committee, but I wonder how vigorously local authorities will seek to ensure that homeless people are registered. That issue will need attention. So that is my first point; registration will be made easier for people in those categories.
Voting will be made easier for the disabled and other people through postal votes and so on. In his opening speech the Minister mentioned the question of disabled access to polling stations. It is true that provision is very patchy. When I went to vote in the European elections the polling station was rather inaccessible, not only geographically but, once one arrived there, it was extremely inaccessible for anyone in a wheelchair. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said, we need to think about the possibility of some kinds of minimum standards. I strongly support the idea of enfranchising those in mental institutions who have not committed criminal offences.
There is a great deal to be said for Part II of the Bill and the pilot schemes. It is possible to pontificate endlessly about both electoral procedures and electoral systems—I know because I have done a great deal of it myself—and it is therefore important to have evidence. Most of the proposals are quite modest—as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said, they will not change the world—but I think that they will be useful. They will provide evidence by which we can see whether or not they have been successful and we will be able to reflect on that.
However, I have some concerns—as do other noble Lords—about the procedure for getting from the pilot schemes to further rolling out of the proposals. First, it is very important that the reports made by local authorities embody a high degree of consultation and reflection with citizen bodies, as it were. It would be very unfortunate if the reports were compiled by taking only the views of the local political and bureaucratic elite. They must have a bit more substance and legitimacy than that. I do not quite know how that can be done, but it cannot be a case of asking the views of councillors, electoral registration returning officers and so on. There must be a broader consultation in order that we get a report which we can take seriously and by which we will want to be influenced.
There remains the major question of how we get from there to the rolling-out process. A part of the report of the committee that I chaired—in which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, was the prime mover— argued strongly in favour of an electoral commission.

45
I still believe that there is a very strong case for that. Obviously, if there were to be an electoral commission, that would be the ideal body for adjudicating whether the reports on the pilot schemes justified a kind of national development along those lines. So I support that idea.
I am in favour of pilot schemes in other areas, particularly in local government elections. It is no secret that I favour pilot schemes in relation to alternative voting systems—whether majoritarian or proportional—because, again, we need evidence to see how they work, how people respond to them and what are their consequences. However, the issue of extending pilot schemes to such areas is probably for another day and another Bill, despite the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, to the contrary.
I welcome the Bill. Obviously there is a lot of potential devil in the detail but, with good will on all sides, as reflected in the Howarth report, we can make a useful modernisation of electoral procedures through this mechanism.
5.7 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, while I am happy to give a general welcome to the Bill, I have two objections to state at the outset. First, the format of the Bill superimposes new clauses—or sections, as they will be—on top of the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985. I know it is convenient for all governments to do this—it probably enables them to take earlier action, than might otherwise be the case—but it means that it is virtually impossible, on any subject that one cares to mention, to pick up one Act of Parliament and say, "This is the law on this subject". I hope that in future more attention will be given to providing Bills which we, as it were, consolidate as we go along rather than waiting to consolidate by a lengthy process some years later.
My second objection is more serious. It was touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, during the Minister's opening speech. It concerns the question of using secondary legislation orders to roll out a pilot scheme which the Minister has thought successful. I should say in passing that "rolling out a scheme" is a rather curious expression. It sounds as though one is making pastry and rolling it out on a piece of marble. That is by the by—I do not know where the expression comes from—but I am very concerned about such use of secondary legislation. Frankly, I would go so far as to describe it as an abuse and misuse of secondary legislation. In my view, orders should be used in only two circumstances. The first is where the subject matter has been the subject of a policy decision but where many technical arrangements are to be made. I take an example close to my heart: that of animal welfare. I quite see that having decided that the welfare of animals kept on farms is a concern, it should be left to experts to work out regulations specifying what kind of bedding should be used, what size of pen the animals should be kept in, and so forth. In the second instance, where circumstances are changing so fast, it is virtually impossible for Parliament to keep up.
46
I believe that those are the only two sets of circumstances where secondary legislation is feasible. That is not the case here. We should be dealing with making policy about various pilot schemes. I believe strongly that that should be a subject for primary legislation.
As to the details of the Bill, I give a warm welcome to the rolling register. I cannot quite match the record of my noble friend Lord Jopling, who has now left the Chamber; however, I fought seven general elections and eight local government elections. I have seen it all from the point of view of the candidate rather than that of the agent, described in the notable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. It is certainly true that the greatest nightmare is trying to find out who has the right to vote from a register which will already be out of date when it comes into force on 16 February. The position becomes worse as time passes. If one has to fight an election in, say, January or February of next year, the register is by then woefully out of date. Using modern technology to bring it up to date is one of the best ways in which we can encourage people who want to vote to do so.
Coupled with that, I greatly welcome the absent voting procedures which in effect do away with all the criteria. Somehow, individual people never fitted into them, so either one had to forgo the right to vote or massage the criteria in order to fit in. The change is sensible. I suspect that the rolling register and absent voting procedures may make some of the other suggestions mooted less important than they otherwise would be.
On the question of whether the register should be open to other organisations and whether it should be edited, I personally have found no way of squaring the circle. I suspect that if, as my noble friend Lord Norton suggested, one sought not to allow it to be sold at all, there would be unfortunate repercussions. The register is, after all, a public document. It will be circulating publicly for perfectly good and acceptable reasons. If, however, organisations are forbidden to buy it at all, I am sure that they will seek to obtain it in other ways. Therefore, much though I dislike the idea, some kind of sensible compromise must be reached. I cannot offer any complete solution to the problem; no doubt, if I could, I should be sitting on the Front Bench rather than a Back Bench.
I turn to the various pilot schemes suggested. I am all for pilot schemes taking place. It is simply the method by which they may be rolled out to which I take objection. One of the most sensible schemes would be to enable someone to vote at any polling station within his constituency. That seems eminently sensible. In the case of a commuter returning tired from a long journey, perhaps rather late, the polling station which would appear the most suitable for him may not be; it may be easier for him to go to the one immediately outside the station where he arrives.
I take the case of the elderly lady—I have certainly seen such cases as a candidate—who does not want to vote by post but in person, but who may be infirm and whose polling station is about the most difficult

47
imaginable for her for all sorts of reasons. For example, she may have difficulty climbing up and down the steps or it may be an extraordinarily windy day. If she could be taken to a polling station that was easily accessible, anywhere at all within the constituency, that would make life much easier for her. That may be a sensible approach, far more sensible than placing the polling booth in the middle of a supermarket where a number of difficulties could arise. That would be particularly so if it was felt that placing it in supermarket A—I mention no names— might give that store an added advantage over supermarket B or C.
All in all, I welcome pilot schemes taking place provided that, if they are considered reasonable, they are the subject of primary, not secondary, legislation. I am sure my noble friend Lord Norton is right. Whatever we do to make life easier for those voting, it will not make much difference to those who have no interest in voting. I cannot think of any legislative action that we might take which would bring that about—save one which might appear rather drastic to your Lordships; namely, "use it or lose it". In other words, if someone failed to vote at an election, his name would be struck off and he would not vote again. If one takes rights away from people, that is usually the surest way of making them clamour for them. Short of that solution, we must look to non-legislative measures to encourage people to vote where they are failing to do so.
I welcome the Bill with the important reservations that I have outlined. I hope that at Committee stage we shall be able to make improvements.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the ground is well trodden; I shall be brief. The thrust of my criticism against the Bill is against Clauses 9 and 11. I have not discussed the matter with any of my noble friends, in particular, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, but I agree wholeheartedly with what he said, which is what I was going to say.
I take the view that the Bill has missed an opportunity to curb misuse of the right to inspect the public register, so that it is used for commercial purposes for which it was never originally designed, contrary to the wishes of the person registered. I wholly agree that Clause 11 simply cannot stand part as drafted and that such proposals go to the root of democracy and are a matter for Parliament.
I do not need to detain your Lordships for more than 30 seconds to look at Clause 11, which states that he—that is, the Secretary of State—may order "elections of any description" for,
"the whole of the United Kingdom … approved by a resolution of. each House of Parliament",
for—if one looks over the page—elections of any kind. If that needs to be done—and for all I know it may need to be done—it must be done by primary legislation; through a Bill properly debated through both Houses of Parliament.
48
One can surely look at Clause 9 in this way: one may accept that the full register compiled for electoral purposes must be open to public inspection. However, it is not considered that the right of inspection should be used for commercial purposes, such as direct mail marketing, without the previous consent of the person registered to be canvassed by letter, fax, e-mail or on the doorstep. It is considered that current trading practices in that regard have reached the proportions of an unacceptable abuse of individual privacy. They are a security hazard not only to persons but to property; they are a hazard to credit references; they are an intolerable waste of time, money and materials and they are a nuisance to those who do not wish to be canvassed. The situation is in no way alleviated by the edited register, as there is public access to the electoral register. The question is not effectively addressed by the Bill and that is why I have respectfully suggested that this is a missed opportunity.
The order of this abuse has been augmented by the advances of technology and will be so augmented by future advances. The workings of these processes are beyond my personal comprehension and no doubt shall always remain so. At the Committee stage I would not be able to table a truly effective amendment on that issue, for the effect of such an amendment would be to prohibit by the imposition of a substantial penalty such canvassing without the written prior consent of the person registered. On that principle, with respect to my noble friend Lady Fookes, I would not be able to compromise.
It is idle to suggest that such a prohibition is beyond the scope of the Bill, even if beyond the intended scope of the Bill when drafted. It is within the scope of the Bill to provide for access to the electoral register and the uses to which it is put. It is, of course, accepted that the register should be available for charities to use for fund-raising and membership purposes.
The other matters arising from the Bill are, as I see them, of relatively minor importance. Clause 6, which creates the declaration of local connection, is acceptable in principle: to be made available to patients in mental hospitals—all right; to remand prisoners—all right. But as to the homeless, one needs a safeguard along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Jopling. However, it is not understood why people having two properties which are registered in two places should not have the right to vote in both places; to elect a candidate to represent their interests. If that were to happen, the question of unsupervised abuse and so on would not arise. It appears to be a perfectly reasonable suggestion that someone who has an interest in the property has an interest in being able to vote.
Clause 12 makes new provision about voting. It is a great improvement on the current system. The advance of facilitating postal and proxy voting for those unable to attend to vote is admirable. But surely that process must completed before the poll is open and should not be operative during the currency of the poll.

49
Lastly, Clause 13 is, broadly speaking, most acceptable. It is one of the more attractive parts of this Bill, the passage of which through this House will, as I see it, cause very severe difficulties with regard to Clause 9, and Clause 11 in particular.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I believe that this is a good Bill. I also believe that it is an important Bill. Democracy in this country is under threat—not an imminent threat but a long-term one—because of the lack of interest in, and respect for, politicians and the political process. That has been reflected in the low turn-outs in many elections. Low turn-outs lead to a vicious circle. If voters do not feel any responsibility for having elected a candidate, they are less interested in how the council or the House of Commons works and therefore they are even less likely to vote in the following election.
There are some understandable and even welcome reasons for lower turn-outs in national elections. There is the decline of ideology. Democracy in the United Kingdom does not face anything remotely like the internal threats that it faced in the 1930s from fascism and communism. Indeed, it does not even face the conflict between socialist and capitalist economic systems that divided the parties for a large part of the previous century. Politics have become less dramatic. They are—again, this is to be welcomed—less based on class loyalties. But the fall in voting is undoubtedly damaging. We have seen it in the elections for the European Parliament and we have seen it in local elections. In some recent local by-elections the turnout was as low as 8 per cent, which is an appalling figure. Therefore, anything which encourages more people to vote is welcome. This must be a matter of encouragement; compulsory voting should be utterly rejected.
I am disappointed by the number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak. There are understandable reasons for not doing so. In spite of the best efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to prove otherwise, this is not a controversial debate. Few Members of your Lordships' House expect in future to contest any form of public election. Nevertheless, the quality of the speeches has been high. All speakers have made serious contributions, many of them either as academic experts on the subject or from personal experience of fighting elections. I hope that the others will forgive me if I refer in particular to my noble friend Lord Rennard, whose experience in running campaigns certainly has no equal on these Benches— and I suspect no equal on any other Benches in this House either. My noble friend mentioned voting in Tesco. It would perhaps be more appropriate to vote in Sainsbury's, given that one member of the family sits as a member of the Government, another sits on the Conservative Benches and the late Lord Sainsbury sat on these Benches, which makes it a suitably all-party venue for holding an election.
50
I join the consensus of support for many features of the Bill. The rolling register is a great step forward. Campaigners from all parties have gnashed their teeth in election after election because of the inaccuracy and outdatedness of the register. It is plainly right that mental patients, remand prisoners and the homeless should be placed on the register. Remand prisoners have not been convicted and should not, therefore, be deprived of civil rights except to the extent that it is absolutely necessary. There is no reason why they should not be allowed to vote. The homeless should certainly not be disfranchised by their homelessness, although I recognise the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling.
Experiments in new times, places and methods of voting may lead to a better turn-out. I welcome the enthusiastic way in which they are being taken up, as we are told, by local authorities. Measures to make it easier to obtain postal votes are good, as are measures which will assist disabled persons.
There are, however, some points that need more detailed examination. Perhaps I may begin with a few of the more minor ones. The first is the question of postal voting. On the whole, it is my experience that anyone who applies in due time and submits a properly completed application form will be given a postal vote, and that refusal on grounds other than time and formality are rare. But the present problem is one of timing. The application has to be made in the first few days after an election has been called. Any of us who have canvassed to any substantial extent will be al I too familiar with cases in which we call on people who say they will support us—they are frequently party members. They then say that they will be on holiday or away on business on election day and that they need a postal vote. One has to tell them, sadly, even two weeks before an election, that it is already too late. That reflects no credit on our democracy. For that reason I was glad that an amendment was tabled in the other place seeking the shortening of the interval between the closing date for application and the election. The Government said in the other place that it was impracticable to do that. I am very glad indeed that the Government have had second thoughts. I very much welcome the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that it is the Government's intention to shorten the closing date from 11 working days before the election to six.
Another minor problem that is not dealt with in the Bill is the question of candidates standing in misleading names. All parties have suffered from that. There is no excuse for allowing someone to stand in an election with a name that has been recently adopted in order to cause confusion with other candidates. I remember the occasion, in the by-election at Hillhead in 1982—when my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead was in fact elected—when my wife had to stand outside the polling booth wearing a sandwich board stating, "The real Roy Jenkins is Number 5 on the ballot form"!
Under provisions in the Registration of Political Parties Act, the Government have stopped people standing in an election under misleading party names.

51
In this Bill, they have taken another step forward in proposing a penalty for giving false addresses on nomination forms. Why, therefore, do they not go forward to take the seemingly simple further step of forbidding people to stand under names which have been recently adopted and are calculated to cause confusion with other candidates?
A third minor point is that, if voting takes place on more than one day, there is a strong argument for saying that there should be restrictions on exit polls. Indeed, it goes further than that. Where elections take place on different days and in different parts of the same election area, whether it is a local government election or an election throughout the United Kingdom for Westminster, the votes should not be counted until the final close of the polls. That is what happens in European elections; in this country we vote on Thursday, but in most member states the vote takes place on the following Sunday and the count is not carried out in this country until the Sunday. The practice should be similar when votes in different parts of the same election area are cast on different days.
One controversial issue, mentioned by many speakers, is the commercial use of the registers. Should there be an edited list for commercial users? There are arguments on both sides. We shall no doubt hear them in considerably greater detail in Committee. One point that occurs to me is the question of whether, if there is no right to opt out, the commercial use of the list would be a breach of the right to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Noble Lords will need to consider all those issues carefully.
The issue that causes me the most concern was first raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, in an intervention, and it has been raised by many other speakers. I refer to Clause 11 of the Bill. Under the clause, the Home Secretary will have the power to change election procedures by statutory instrument—admittedly, it will require the affirmative resolution procedure. But election procedures are of real constitutional importance, as was demonstrated, for example, by the fact that in the other place the whole of the Committee stage of the Bill was taken on the Floor of the House. Is it right that permanent changes should be made by secondary legislation; or should that be done by primary legislation? The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has not yet considered the Bill. Its views on this issue will be very important.
There is another point that has not so far been mentioned. Whether or not permanent changes are to be made by secondary legislation, it is plainly desirable that the election commission should be consulted on them. Indeed, it may well be desirable to make the consent of the election commission necessary to any statutory instrument of that kind, as is proposed with orders made under Clause 7 of what I shall refer to for short as the political parties Bill.
The problem is that the Bill now before the House is ahead of the political parties Bill on the legislative ladder. The Government therefore face two
52
alternatives, and should take one or other of them. The first is to leave out Clause 11 of this Bill, so that it can be brought back as part of the political parties Bill and can, therefore, include the appropriate role for the electoral commission which will be set up under the political parties Bill. The second is for the Government to give an undertaking that the political parties Bill will be amended so as to provide for consultation with, and the consent of, the election commission on the proposed exercise of the Clause 11 powers, and an undertaking not to bring Clause 11 of this Bill into force until the relevant parts of the political parties Bill are also brought into force. That is the most important issue that remains to be discussed.
Finally, the Bill misses an opportunity; namely, it fails to change the voting system for local elections to one of proportional representation. On these Benches, we campaign for proportional representation at all levels. But its importance at local government level is clear. The absence of PR has meant permanent one-party government in a substantial number of our boroughs and districts. It leads at best to complacency, at worst to gross incompetence and corruption. I greatly regret that neither this Bill nor the Local Government Bill moves in the direction of PR, in particular PR by an open system.
The reason for the low turn-out in local government is, I am sure, in part due to the fact that the powers of local government seem to be altogether too restricted by control exercised from Whitehall. But I believe also that to some extent the voting turnout in local elections is low because of the belief—in many cases accurate— that nothing will lead to a change of control in that local election area. It is notable that the lowest turnouts in local elections tend to come from inner city wards, in Labour-controlled authorities, where access to polling stations is almost always no more than a short stroll away, but voting is seen to be pointless because control never changes. That may or may not be a matter which can be raised further on the Bill.
But, subject to that and the other comments I have made, I am happy to give more than two cheers, maybe two-and-a-half, even two-and-three-quarters to the Bill.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this has been a good and interesting debate with excellent contributions. Although it is always invidious to select excellent contributions, I greatly enjoyed that from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in his maiden speech. I fancy we shall hear a good deal more from him, and no doubt it will be interesting and wittily put. He has an enviable track record in by-elections and elections throughout the country. While I am never one to blow my own trumpet, down in good sunny old Brighton, we managed to keep the Liberals and Liberal Democrats out for more than a decade but I suspect the hand of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in their fightback last year in the local elections. I bet he was not a million miles away from giving them careful advice.

53
I also enjoyed the wise contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, who is expert in such matters. She has been busy trying to persuade the Labour Party and others of the wisdom of trying to modernise our rather antique electoral system.
I took particular pleasure in listening to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Norton. He made some extremely interesting points, not least those which were beyond the scope of today's debate, about the importance of strengthening local political parties, to add something to the way in which our local democracy works. As ever, we had a valuable contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Plant, with his breadth of knowledge and expertise—technical expertise particularly—in this field. They were all important contributions to a good debate.
What pleased me particularly about this afternoon's deliberations was the positive attitude evident in the speeches of all noble Lords. I even detected a few positive notes from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He spent 23 minutes on them, he tried to disguise it with some well-aimed barbs, but there were even some positive observations from him. They too were welcome. Perhaps in his heart of hearts he is a bit of a closet moderniser and believes that we ought to update our electoral procedures sometime, even though he is somewhat reluctant in making the arguments.
It should be a source of pride to all of us that elections in Britain have been remarkably free of corruption and fraud. Not only that, but they command public confidence. Put simply, the public believes that the result declared by the returning officer reflects the votes that have been cast. Not every country can make the same boast: it is a precious asset which we must safeguard. I believe that the Bill does precisely that, not least in allowing us to pilot new electoral procedures before deciding whether they would be suitable for wider application.
A number of noble Lords had reservations about particular parts of the Bill. No doubt we shall be in for a lively Committee stage. I hope and believe that our deliberations will be based on a genuine attempt on all sides to ascertain, whether the Bill can be improved. After all, that is one of the purposes of your Lordships' House.
That spirit of constructive consensus lay behind the working party's report, which was unanimous in every recommendation except one. It was also the spirit that was evident during most of the Bill's passage through another place, as I observed earlier. I would therefore be surprised to find any other kind of approach coming from noble Lords generally.
I wish to deal with some points raised in the debate this afternoon. If I miss any, I apologise in advance and I shall try to deal with them later.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made some useful observations and raised good questions in regard to the detail. First, he raised the use of the term "Commonwealth citizen". It includes UK citizens; the term is used frequently in legislation. Indeed, it
54
replicates existing legislation. No doubt he will find it in legislation to which he was party under the previous government.
The noble Lord asked about UK citizens living in Ireland. Such citizens have the right to vote in Irish elections. However, the practice varies in Commonwealth countries. It is true that UK citizens cannot automatically vote in elections in all Commonwealth countries. However, all Commonwealth citizens living here can vote in our elections, in recognition of the long and close ties between the UK and other members of the Commonwealth.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for attempting to answer the questions. I asked whether there was a Commonwealth country in which that reciprocity existed. Perhaps he can help.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not sure I can help the noble Lord on that this afternoon, but I shall endeavour to carry out further research. The approach adopted in using the term is one that has been adopted generally by successive governments.
The noble Lord also asked about taking people off the register. It is currently not possible to do so at all, but the new Section 10A(5) enables registration officers to remove names from the register where they are satisfied that they are no longer entitled to be on the register. Registration officers will be able to consult local records held by public authorities, including the local register of births, marriages and deaths. The provision allowing registration officers to keep names on the register for a year where the electoral registration form has not been returned simply gives statutory effect to existing practice.
The noble Lord raised the question of the working party's recommendation that pilot schemes should be rolled out without further primary legislation. Many noble Lords raised the point in the debate: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I refer the House to paragraph 3.1.14 of the working party's report, which states:
"Any legislation should in our view be framed to allow successful pilots to be rolled out more widely without the need for further primary legislation".
I have heard what many noble Lords said on the matter. We shall have to take those comments on board and give them further consideration. At the heart of this is adopting a process using the affirmative procedure so that we may have flexibility. That is probably an important element in the issue.
The noble Lord raised the question of exit polls. We recognise that there are problems with such polls and that they could have an impact on elections if there is voting over more than one day. My ministerial colleagues in another place have already made a commitment to bring forward an amendment to the Bill to ensure that the result of exit polls cannot be

55
made public before the final close of polling. That must be right and we hope to bring forward that amendment shortly.
My noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton asked about consultation on further aspects of the legislation. The working party was an all-party consultative body. We shall continue to consult. We are always happy to hear the views of political parties on ways to improve our electoral procedures. This is an indication that we shall always need to consult on important issues in the development of our democratic system. No doubt we shall consider improvements in future. This is the beginning, not perhaps the close, of an important chapter.
The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, asked whether I would take up the offer made by the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers to hold further consultation. In response, we are already in consultation with interested bodies in different parts of the industry. Only today, my ministerial colleague Mike O'Brien held a meeting with representatives of the direct marketing industry. I am more than happy to receive representations and meet any group which feels that it has not yet had an opportunity to make representations to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, commented on the restrictions on the sale of the register and said that they would not work. We believe that the regulations under Clause 9 will restrict not only the people to whom the full register may be supplied or sold but also the purposes for which it may be used. Someone who has had access to the full register, for example for electoral or law enforcement purposes, commits a criminal offence under the legislation if he or she passes a copy of the register to a friend in the direct marketing industry or a charity. We believe that the measures will be effective. The noble Lord also asked whether the provisions allowed those unable to read to be assisted to vote and applied also to people who were unable to read because of a learning difficulty. The provisions will apply to anyone who is unable to read for whatever reason. A generous view will be taken of that particular new measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, asked about commencement dates. As noble Lords have recognised, detailed regulations will be required to give effect to the provisions on the sale of the register and the rolling registration process. For that reason, we do not believe that the Bill can in its entirety come into effect at Royal Assent. We hope that, since it will be possible to run the first pilot schemes in the local elections in May, Clause 10 will come into effect on Royal Assent, but other parts of the legislation may well be introduced later.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, suggested that the Bill should be consolidated rather than just amending parts of previous Acts of Parliament that deal with this area. The Representation of the People Act 1983 contains over 200 sections. If we included all that Act in this Bill rather than the parts to be amended, we would need to devote a great deal of additional parliamentary time to the legislation and
56
the consequential changes that flowed from it. We believe that what the noble Baroness suggests is a rather cumbersome way to change and modernise our electoral system, and for that reason we prefer the approach that we have adopted.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked why people should not be allowed to vote twice. A person who is registered to vote in two separate local authority areas may vote in both in local elections. However, no one may vote more than once in a general election, and I doubt that many would sign up to that particular suggestion.
I turn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He asked why the Government did not prevent people from standing under recently adopted names. We take the view that because candidates can now describe themselves by use of registered party names and because party emblems appear on the ballot paper there is very little scope for confusion. However, new names may be adopted at any time and it would be very difficult for a returning officer to rule out their use because he or she was suspicious about the motive behind the change of name.
If I have not covered every point in my response I shall happily engage in correspondence to cover the outstanding matters. In summary, we believe that this is an important piece of modernising legislation. The Bill updates electoral processes and has the potential to bring into play modern technology—something on which many noble Lords have touched.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the Minister has performed a Herculean task in winding-up. However, does the noble Lord agree that, as to new technologies, this Bill provides an opportunity to get ahead of the game, particularly in view of experiments that are taking place in the United States? Is the Home Office making a study of the use of the Internet in elections and related matters?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, we keep these matters under constant, active consideration. I had intended to develop the point. We fully acknowledge the importance of bringing new technology to bear on the electoral process. Some of the pilots that local authorities have offered to the Home Office are designed to look at electronic voting and counting systems. Eight of the potential pilots do one or other of those two things. We shall study those pilots with great interest because they may offer important lessons. Today, many political parties use electronic and telephonic voting systems that may well have broad application, and for that reason we encourage pilots and want them to be taken forward.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "democracy" as "government by the people". Perhaps in the Greek city states that might have been literally possible, although those concerned tended to be men of a certain standing only. In the modern era that is achieved by people voting for and choosing those to represent them. Therefore, any Bill that is concerned with elections goes to the very heart of our democracy. If we can ensure that our electoral procedures are as

57
open and effective as possible, and that it is as easy as possible for people to participate in the democratic process, we shall have made a significant improvement to our constitution. For that reason, we believe that this Bill will make a valuable contribution to improving the quality of democracy, whether locally or nationally.
The Bill will enable people to participate in the democratic process and will enfranchise those who perhaps have been prevented from playing a full part in it. We believe that the new measures to be used in taking forward that process will have a lasting impact on the quality of our democracy. In response to those noble Lords who have said that this Bill is perhaps too cautious, I believe that in future it will prove to be an ambitious beginning to the development of our democratic system. I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Immigration (Regularisation Period for Overstayers) Regulations 2000
5.58 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations are made under Section 9 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. During the passage of the Bill, we offered to consider representations about the position of overstayers who, by virtue of the Bill's provisions, would no longer have a suspensive right of appeal against a decision to remove them from the United Kingdom.
The Act provides that a decision that an overstayer is not to be allowed to remain will be implemented by an administrative removal procedure if the overstayer does not depart voluntarily. The decision will not in itself attract a right of appeal before removal. It is expected that this provision will come into force on 2nd October when the Human Rights Act is due to come into effect.
Currently, overstayers are removed through the deportation procedure which attracts a specific and suspensive right of appeal. There is a full right of appeal if they have been here seven years or more, and an appeal restricted to the lawfulness of the decision if they have been here less than seven years subject to some limited exceptions.
It should be appreciated that many overstayers on whom decisions are taken from 2nd October will in fact have a suspensive right of appeal in any case. Those who have sought asylum or made a human rights claim will so benefit. The right of appeal we are considering here is solely on the deportation issue; that is, whether or not deportation as a process is appropriate (full appeal) or lawful (restricted appeal).
Concern was expressed about the position of current overstayers. It was suggested that many had been here some considerable time and should not be removed without a suspensive appeal. We had sympathy with this view, but could not agree to an open-ended approach. We therefore introduced a new clause to the Bill at Commons Report stage—now Section 9 of the Act. Section 9 sets out a scheme in which those overstayers who make a specific application will have a limited opportunity to take advantage of the right to a suspensive deportation appeal even if the decision is taken after the new appeals provisions come into effect.
I must stress here and now that the scheme is not an amnesty for overstayers. Do not be misled by use of the term "regularisation". The regulations are for people whose status here is "irregular". The scheme makes a special arrangement for those who apply to "regularise" their stay during the period, but it gives no promise whatsoever that the application will succeed. Applications will be considered under the normal criteria, and unless there are compassionate circumstances outweighing the public interest, leave to remain will be refused. Unless the overstayer then makes a voluntary departure, deportation will follow, subject to appeal. The scheme simply ensures that those who apply will retain the appeal right if the decision is taken after 1st October.
It may be helpful if I explain how applications under Section 9 will be considered. Applications under these arrangements will be considered in the same way and applying the same criteria as in the case of any other overstayer; that is, they will be considered in accordance with paragraph 364 of the Immigration Rules. As that paragraph makes clear, where someone has remained without authority, deportation will normally be the proper course. Each case is, of course, considered on its individual merits, balancing the public interest against any compassionate circumstances. The rules require us to take account of such factors as are known to us; in particular, age; length of residence in the UK; links with the UK; personal history, including character, conduct and employment records; domestic circumstances; any criminal record; compassionate circumstances and any representations we receive on behalf of the person concerned. That is why applicants under Section 9 will be invited to provide those details. But the rules are clear that deportation will normally be the proper course of action. That will not change. This is not an amnesty and cases will not simply be written off.
During the passage of the Act, Section 9 was debated extensively. The Opposition did not oppose the introduction of this section then or at any subsequent stage of the Act's passage. We made it clear then—and I make clear now—that those who apply under the terms of this scheme will not benefit from any relaxed criteria. The same deportation criteria which are in force now will be applied to those who apply under the scheme.
Those who are not given leave to remain and who were last given leave to enter more than seven years ago will have a full right of appeal, while those given leave to enter less than seven years ago will have a limited right of appeal confined to whether in law there was power to make a notice of intention to deport. For those whose appeals are dismissed, deportation will be the normal course.
Section 9 provides for a "regularisation period" during which overstayers may apply in a prescribed manner. It also provides that the start and finish days will be prescribed. The period is to be at least three months, and the scheme is to be publicised. I shall describe the regulations shortly, but we have done our best to maximise the period which we hope will be very nearly eight months. We are producing a leaflet and poster which will be distributed through the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux' network of advice centres, and will be passed on to local community groups. The leaflet will also be available on IND's website. We are arranging further distribution of the leaflet through the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate has an active User Panel. We shall discuss further publicity with it as the scheme progresses to ensure that the message is getting across, but we do intend to make use of the ethnic minority press.
In accordance with a general commitment that we gave during the passage of the Bill, I should like formally to state that in my view the provisions of the Immigration (Regularisation Period for Overstayers) Regulations 2000 are compatible with the convention rights as defined by Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
I shall now briefly describe the regulations themselves. Regulation 1(1) provides that they shall come into force on the day after the day on which they are made. Subject to parliamentary approval, this will enable us to commence the scheme as soon as possible.
Regulation 2 prescribes the manner of application. An application is to be made in writing, and is to set out certain information and attach certain material. Addresses are given for both postal and personal service.
Regulation 2 paragraphs (4)(a) to (c) require basic information to be provided in order to identify the applicant, establish where he may be contacted and who, if anyone, is representing him.
Regulation 2 paragraphs (4)(d) and (e) require the applicant to set out what details he can recall of his immigration history: the dates and periods for which he was granted leave to enter or remain. The period spent here lawfully and the length of his stay are vital parts of the applicant's case. There may be no central record of admission, the passport may not be available and so we need some indication of the central basis for the claim.
Regulation 2 paragraph (4)(f) asks for the applicant's Home Office reference number, if known.
Regulation 2 paragraph (4)(g) requires that the application must make it clear that it is in fact an application under the scheme. We cannot assume that everyone wants to benefit: some may prefer to be administratively removed in order to avoid what they consider to be the stigma of deportation.
Regulation 2 paragraph (4)(h) requires the applicant to tell us the circumstances he would like us to take into account. The circumstances listed broadly follow those set out in paragraph 364 of the Immigration Rules which the Secretary of State is obliged to consider when deciding whether to deport an overstayer.
Regulation 2 paragraph (5) specifies the material to be submitted. We are asking for passports used by the applicant, and any documents the applicant considers will support his application.
There is no specific application form for the scheme. We envisage that many applicants will be applying for leave to remain under the scheme on the basis of a provision of the Immigration Rules; for example, as the spouse of a person settled here. If that is the case, we may well ask them to complete the form that such a person would normally be asked to fill in if further information is needed.
We have tried to achieve a balance which gives us enough information in the first instance to establish whether or not the applicant is in fact an overstayer and to make an assessment of the general merits of the case.
Regulation 3 paragraph (1) sets the start of the period as the day the regulations come into force. This will be the day after they are made. We had intended to start on 1st February if the regulations came into force earlier. The reference to 1st February is now redundant. Paragraph (2) sets the end of the period at 1st October 2000. That is the day before the new removal procedure is expected to come into operation, together with the introduction of human rights appeals (Section 65 of the 1999 Act). These are dependent on the Human Rights Act coming into force. Should this be delayed, Section 9(3)(b) of the 1999 Act automatically ensures that the period expires the day before the new system starts.
Regulation 4 provides that where an application is sent by recorded delivery post to the specified address, it is taken to have been delivered on the second day after posting, unless received earlier. We recommend that all applications be sent by recorded delivery, thus ensuring that there is a record of posting and proof of whether or not an application has been made in time.
Having explained the purpose and content of these regulations, I shall do my best to answer any points that the House may raise. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the effect of the regulations and the detail involved. It is right that overstayers should be brought to account under the immigration controls. However, I accept that a period of grace, as allowed for in the Act, is being properly provided for them to try to regularise their position.
I have only one question arising from newspaper reports that a bond of £10,000 will in future be required in respect of immigrants coming here temporarily from certain countries. That is an interesting and novel suggestion, but I should like to know whether it will apply to people who under the regulations seek to regularise their position in order to stay here beyond October.
It is difficult to know what the status of a newspaper report may be; whether it is a genuine leak, by which I mean an unauthorised disclosure of something that is being considered; whether it is an advance announcement by Mr Campbell of policy that has been agreed and settled; or whether, following Mr Campbell's article in this morning's press, it is speculation with no foundation except within the imagination of the journalist concerned. I suppose that there may be a fourth possible category; that it is a kite; that is, something being tried out on the newspapers to test reaction. However, the immediate point is the status of the proposal as regards the people covered by the regulations.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, we want to raise a number of issues. I was somewhat surprised to hear the Minister say that this was not related to amnesty. I do not recollect anyone from these Benches, or for that matter the Conservative Benches, asking for amnesty in this case. We are talking about the regularisation period during which those who overstay can apply for leave to remain in the United Kingdom and thereby preserve any rights of appeal they may have against any notice of a decision to deport them.
First, we are concerned about whether the Home Office knows the number of outstanding cases, bearing in mind the utter chaos which exists in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. What is the timescale envisaged to deal with cases which may be the basis of an application by a number of overstayers in this country?
Secondly, the Act provides that the regularisation period should be not less than three months. The regulation is supposed to come into force on 1st February, but the Minister said that that is likely to be delayed. In either case, we know that the end period will he 1st October 2000, when the Human Rights Act comes into effect. We welcome that period within which individual; who are affected by the provision can make an application.
My first concern relates to the regulations which are designed to assist those who want to make an application. However, it does not ensure that overstayers who have already taken steps to regularise their position will not lose their right of appeal against
62
any decision to make them leave the country. Perhaps I may explain what I mean by that. The order provides that people who apply to the Home Office during the regularisation period envisaged, between 1st February and 1st October 2000, will retain whatever rights of appeal against deportation they have at present under the 1971 or 1988 Immigration Acts. But people who have already applied before this period was set up and whose applications are refused after 2nd October 2000 when Section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act is planned to come into force, will not keep appeal rights.
It is ridiculous that people who applied not within that particular period but before it will have no appeal rights. I therefore believe that there is a need to be able to amend the regulation so that such rights are preserved. I have in mind a provision to the effect that the Secretary of State shall deem any overstayer who had applied to the Home Office before the commencement of that period, and whose application has not been decided by the end of it, to have applied under the scheme. In other words, it will assist those people who made an application before 1st February 2000.
Secondly, the Human Rights Act comes into force on 1st October 2000. Will the Minister assure us that anyone who fails in his application to regularise the status of his entitlement to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, which is in breach of the Human Rights Act, will be allowed to apply to the adjudicator against that decision?
Under paragraphs 4 and 5, the applicant is required to make the application in writing. One of the pieces of information requested under paragraph 4(c) is the name and address of any representative who is acting on behalf of the applicant. I have no problem with that, but I think that the Home Office will do so. Under Part V, Section 84 of the Immigration Act, no person may provide immigration services unless he is qualified. The immigration commissioner must prepare and maintain a register for the purpose of Section 84(2)(a) and (b). Again, we welcome that. We are against those people who exploit immigrants and asylum seekers by charging them exorbitant fees.
However, we have neither an immigration commissioner nor a list of people who are entitled to provide these services. Yet we know that exploitation takes place. What will happen to a person who makes an application and gives the name of a representative who is not sufficiently qualified to provide the advice? I hope that the Minister will consider such applications sympathetically. It is vital that a list is available to immigrants who are making application under this regulation. If the list is not available, they ought not to be put at a disadvantage. It is not their fault but the fault of the Immigration Service.
My final point relates to the publicity surrounding the regulation. I welcome the Minister's comments about the number of agencies which will be used to publicise the regulation. However, I want to ask some specific questions. Can the Minister produce the requirements of paragraphs 4 and 5 in various ethnic languages? I do not mean merely putting

63
advertisements in ethnic papers or in CABs and so forth. Paragraphs 4 and 5, which require the individual to provide the information, ought to be available to people in their own languages so that they are fully aware. Would the Minister publicise that requirement not only in the ethnic press but on ethnic radio stations and in the media to which ethnic minorities have access? Will he ensure that since the timescale is limited, radio and television is used and that those who provide the service can tell applicants that the information is available in their language?
The Minister will obviously require the judgment of Solomon in some of his decisions on deportation. For example, paragraph 4(a) deals with the strength of the applicant's connections with the United Kingdom; his personal history, including character, conduct and employment record; his domestic circumstances; and any compassionate circumstances. No one objects to that, but it will be to the advantage of the Home Secretary and the Home Office to set up a committee of representatives of minority groups which can advise him on interpreting some of the information. The ethnic minorities are now mature enough to offer sound advice to the Minister. I hope that he can make use of such information because at present many decisions are taken without due consideration of the impact, not only on the individual, but also on the community.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this short discussion. I shall try to be as helpful as I can in response to their points. Furthermore, I should like to reiterate exactly what we are trying to achieve with these regulations.
First, I should emphasise that there is no relationship between the very limited scheme permitted by Section 9 of the 1999 Act and the new appeals system contained in Part IV of the Act. What the scheme under Section 9 will achieve will be to preserve the current rights of appeal for those who apply under the scheme for leave to remain during the regularisation period. That point must be underlined and made clear.
I also wish to make it clear that the word "regularisation" should not be taken to mean that the simple act of application will result in an applicant being granted leave to remain. I believe that that point needs to be repeated. All applications will be considered very carefully against the criteria for deportation set out in the Commons Standing Committee debate. If deportation appears to be the proper course, the application will be refused.
Both noble Lords raised several questions. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the visitor's bond. This will be introduced on a trial basis. It will not be brought into effect in time to affect anyone applying under this scheme. The proposal itself is contained in Section 16 of the 1999 Act.
64
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised a question relating to the powers under Section 9. As we understand the legislation, under Section 9 of the 1999 Act it will be only those overstayers who make a specific application during the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner who will benefit from the scheme. Section 9 makes no provision for applications to be made outside the prescribed period or for applications to be deemed to have been made.
The noble Lord also raised a question about human rights appeals. Applicants will of course be able to bring judicial review proceedings raising points of human rights after that legislation is introduced on 2nd October. The noble Lord asked about lists of approved representatives. At this stage we cannot provide such a list. The relevant section of the Act is not yet in force and therefore we are unable to do so. The noble Lord made the point that Ministers may get into trouble if they need to exercise the judgment of Solomon. I take the point made by the noble Lord, but the factors listed by the noble Lord are to be found in the immigration rules and must be exercised daily by caseworkers in the IND and by immigration officers. Our staff are making difficult judgments. On their behalf, I am happy to accept the compliment paid to them by the noble Lord.
We have introduced this scheme in response to understandable concerns about the position of overstayers when the new removals procedure commences in October of this year. It has been welcomed, although some feel that it does not go far enough. Unless there has been a misunderstanding, I must return to the point that there is no provision for amnesty. While I do not in any way imply that noble Lords have raised this issue, it has been raised elsewhere. I should like to clarify that this is an appeals process, put in place in recognition of an issue raised by Members of all parties during earlier debates on the legislation. We shall make no distinction in favour of those who apply.
Overstaying must be seen as an offence. It is just as unlawful as illegal entry. While I recognise that some overstayers may deserve sympathy for their plight, or perhaps even admiration for their contribution to the community, many have no place here and we have no intention of rewarding them for failing to comply with our immigration legislation. The purpose of the scheme is simply to allow overstayers after 1st October to preserve the rights of appeal to which they are currently entitled, if they so choose. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I have put to him specific questions about the number of applications he envisages receiving from overstayers, what will be the time factor, and further questions in relation to those who have made an application before 1st February. Why do they need to make a further application under these regulations? However, perhaps the Minister would prefer to read

65
Hansard tomorrow and send me the appropriate answers. That will enable me to deal with any further matters at a later stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Obviously some parts of the information the noble Lord seeks are more readily to hand than are other parts. The question of the number of overstayers is difficult to calculate because people
66
do not necessarily declare themselves as such. Those figures and statistics are not easy to gather. However, I shall be more than happy to study Hansard and take up with more precision the points raised by the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past six o'clock.

  House of Lords: Excluded Hereditary Peers
  House of Lords: Excluded Hereditary Peers
  Sport Action Zones
  Sport Action Zones
  Investment Clubs: Tax Treatment
  Investment Clubs: Tax Treatment
  Special Educational Needs Training
  Special Educational Needs Training
  Small Schools Support Fund: Dorton House
  Small Schools Support Fund: Dorton House
  Pensioners Receiving Less Than Full State Pension
  Pensioners Receiving Less Than Full State Pension
  Continuing Care: Revised Eligibility Criteria
  Continuing Care: Revised Eligibility Criteria
  Children Act 1989: Report
  Children Act 1989: Report
  Mersley Farms, IoW: Alleged Breach of Environmental Controls
  Mersley Farms, IoW: Alleged Breach of Environmental Controls
  The Community Legal Service
  The Community Legal Service
  Police Forces: Sharing of Best Practice
  Police Forces: Sharing of Best Practice
  Police Complaints Authority
  Police Complaints Authority
  Prisons: Performance Improvement
  Prisons: Performance Improvement
  British Nationality Act 1981: Exercise of Discretion
  British Nationality Act 1981: Exercise of Discretion
  Parental Leave Directive: Application
  Parental Leave Directive: Application
  Deep Mines
  Deep Mines
  Gas Imports for Power Stations
  Gas Imports for Power Stations
  TransTec plc
  TransTec plc
  North-West England: SME Funding by ERDF
  North-West England: SME Funding by ERDF
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Flotation Investigation
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Flotation Investigation
  FCO Recruitment Advertisement
  FCO Recruitment Advertisement
  Cyprus: UN Proximity Talks
  Cyprus: UN Proximity Talks
  Glyphosate Residues in Soya Products
  Glyphosate Residues in Soya Products
  Government Expenditure on Advertising
  Government Expenditure on Advertising
  Labour Party and Centralised Government
  Labour Party and Centralised Government
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Strategic Communications Unit
  GICS and Strategic Communications Unit: Output
  GICS and Strategic Communications Unit: Output