Sitting of 5 July 2000

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

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Wednesday 12 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Ethiopia
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If she will make a statement on her policy towards development aid to Ethiopia. [127737]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Our current bilateral programme in Ethiopia is small, our work on food security is on-going and, so far this year, we have contributed £9 million for food aid directly and another £14 million through the EC. The recent signature by Ethiopia and Eritrea of a cessation of hostilities agreement is a welcome and positive development. We are encouraging the international financial institutions and the European Union to re-engage as the peace process unfolds and we will, over the coming months, review our bilateral programme.
    Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. She is right to bear in mind the conflict that took place between the two countries. However, it is urgent to renew development aid, because the last thing that we want three, four or five years down the line is a repeat of the situation that we have just seen in Ethiopia. Will she therefore think very carefully about how she can speed up the development aid that that country so desperately needs?
    Clare Short: I applaud the hon. Gentleman's objective, but we have to make a distinction. Humanitarian aid and food aid go to anyone regardless, and we do not stop them because of war—people have to eat. However, development aid must not support countries arming themselves and going to war, so we have to nuance that. Of course, we want to reinforce peace and get on with development. Both Ethiopia and Eritrea are desperately
    314
    poor countries, and the people there are subject to hunger because they are so poor. We shall do all that we can to help development and to maintain the peace.

    Aid Budget Reform
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What discussions she has had with EU officials on reform of the aid budget. [127738]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon. Friend and I have frequent exchanges with Commissioners Nielson and Patten about reform of the European Commission aid budget. We are working for the implementation of our strategy, a copy of which I have here and a copy of which is in the Library of the House. We are constantly pressing the Commission and other EU member states to improve the poverty focus and effectiveness of EC development assistance.
    Mr. Swayne: Given the description of the rotten heart of Europe that the Secretary of State gave to the Select Committee on International Development yesterday, what prospect is there of the United Kingdom regaining control of the budget so that it might be deployed according to our own exemplary standards?
    Mr. Foulkes: We have a much better prospect of that with the Labour party in power than we would have if the Conservative party were in power. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in 1992, his Government renegotiated the financial perspectives, and the amount of Britain's aid budget that we contributed to Europe went up from 20 to 30 per cent. When we negotiated the financial perspectives last year, we kept the figure constant. With an increasing budget for development, that means that we have, unlike the previous Government, more money to spend on bilateral assistance. The percentage spent on bilateral assistance will be increasing.
    Mr. David Stewart: What steps can the Secretary of State take to refocus EU aid spending towards poorer countries?
    Mr. Foulkes: That is exactly what we are discussing with the Commissioners. In 1987, about 75 per cent. of European Community aid was spent on the poorest countries of the world, but 10 years later the figure was just over 50 per cent. That is not good enough and we argue that there has to be a switch towards a poverty-focused programme. At last, the European Commission has published a draft policy statement that is moving in that direction. Commissioner Nielson strongly supports that, and we are backing him 100 per cent.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: The House does not need a history lesson from the Minister. We need something specific in terms of action to make the situation better. Will he confirm that the Government will table paving reforms at the current intergovernmental conference so that a mechanism is put in place to enable member states who choose to do so to take urgent and immediate action to spend most of their aid budgets bilaterally if the Patten reforms do not prove to be a

    315
    success within the next 12 months? Is that not a proper response to the EU aid fiasco? We want not empty words but positive, constructive and common-sense action.
    Mr. Foulkes: I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but I think that the hon. Gentleman does need a history lesson. He has the barefaced cheek to come here to try to lecture us. As I pointed out in reply to the main question, it was under his Government that the percentage of money spent in Europe increased substantially and yet no action was taken to make that spending more effective. We have taken action to make the spending more effective. We have produced a strategy paper and we are working to get it implemented. The number of Commissioners dealing with development assistance has been reduced from five to two; we have renegotiated the Lomé convention; and we have financial perspectives that do not increase development assistance. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman took a history lesson and learned from us.
    Mr. Streeter: I assume that that was a very long no to my specific question. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I that if steps are not taken at this year's IGC to effect radical surgery of the EU aid budget, no action will be possible for several years—unless he knows the date of the next IGC, which I know he does not—during which the world's poorest countries will continue to be cheated out of vital help and support by bungling Brussels bureaucrats. If they do not seize this heaven-sent opportunity to implement a framework for a better aid policy, will it not be just another example of this Government being long on rhetoric and short on delivery?
    Mr. Foulkes: This is barefaced cheek from the Opposition; what is more, it is carefully rehearsed barefaced cheek. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported did absolutely nothing to reform the European Community development programme. In fact, they increased it by 50 per cent. We are moving in the right direction: there is a poverty focus and an agreement to streamline the programme and delegate it to the countries concerned. We are moving in the right direction, and under this Government we will continue to do so.

    Beijing Plus 5 Review
    Ms Chris McCafferty: If she will make a statement on the final report of the Beijing plus 5 review. [127739]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The principles laid down at Beijing were reaffirmed despite the efforts of some hard-line states to reverse previous gains. The report by the United Nations Development Fund for Women—UNIFEM—on progress worldwide since Beijing will be placed in the Library.
    Ms McCafferty: Does my hon. Friend agree that 70 per cent. of the world's poorest people are women? Is he aware that, next week, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities will launch a special report to mark world population day that will highlight the fact that reproductive health and rights are human rights? Will he do everything possible to ensure that the sexual health and
    316
    reproductive rights of adolescents and women are regarded as human rights and are part of the Government's international development policy?
    Mr. Foulkes: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I can reassure her that the gains made in Cairo were successfully defended in Beijing, despite the persistent efforts of hard-line states to undermine them. We would like much more explicit commitments to women's sexual rights, particularly the right to control their own sex lives, but a number of conservative countries are still blocking that.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Does the Minister agree that many of the world's conflicts occur in some of the world's poorest countries and that often many of the non-combatants affected are women and children? Does he also agree that those women often suffer sexual violence as well as the violence of the wider war? What measures is his Department taking to ensure that those women's rights and children's rights will be central to its emergency aid for such conflicts?
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman has pinpointed something that we have said on several occasions during Question Time: poverty is exacerbated by conflict. It is difficult for us to implement programmes to help the poorest people, particularly women and children, during conflict.
    The question of violence against women was discussed at Beijing plus 5 and real gains were made. So-called honour killings, acid attacks, marital rape and forced marriage were condemned and recognised for the first time as a cause of concern. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is some progress.
    Mr. John Bercow: Of the 12 specific promises agreed in Beijing, how many has the United Kingdom fulfilled?
    Mr. Foulkes: We have made substantial progress on the promises that were made. If I had the time, I would spell out each of them one by one. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, at Beijing plus 5, there was no retreat from previous agreements on abortion; there were many strong references to the threat to women posed by HIV; the key role of the women's movement in non-governmental organisations was recognised and the importance of women's rights at work is underlined in the report; the need fully to extend inheritance and property rights to women was accepted; and, as I said earlier, real gains were made in relation to violence against women. I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman would agree that that is substantial progress.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with the Chinese about the spread of HIV-AIDS from Burma? I should like to congratulate the Department on its excellent publication on that country, which came out yesterday.
    Mr. Foulkes: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I am pleased to tell him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State plans to visit the border area to look at the project that he identified. I am sure that he agrees that that will be a great step forward.

    China Western Poverty Reduction Project
    Mr. Norman Baker: What her policy is in respect of the China western poverty reduction project. [127740]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Britain supported the China western poverty reduction project at the World Bank board meeting in June 1999 because it is designed to bring significant benefits to 1.7 million of the poorest people in China. The hons. Gentleman will know that there was a campaign against the project. We therefore scrutinised it carefully and were convinced that, basically, it was beneficial. We also supported the board's conclusion that no funds should be disbursed on the Qinghai component of the project until an independent inspection panel had conducted an investigation, and it had been subject to further environmental and social assessments.
    The report by the independent inspection panel, and the bank management's response to it, will be discussed at a World Bank board meeting on 6 July.
    Mr. Baker: I am interested to know what the Secretary of State's position will be on 6 July—that is a key question. Is the Secretary of State aware that the World Bank inspection panel found seven major violations of World Bank policy in that particular project, including a lack of proper consultation, inadequate environmental assessment and a climate of fear in the area in question? With even the US opposed to the project, will she consider the matter carefully and conclude that it is not in the UK Government's interest, and certainly not in the Tibetan interest, to support this project?
    Clare Short: We have not yet decided exactly what position we will take at the board meeting. There will be a discussion but not a final decision on 6 July. We are trying to maintain the project and benefits to some of the poorest people in China, some of whom have an annual income of only £23 a year. They live in remote villages for and represent four different ethnic minorities. We want to preserve a good project, but make sure that there is proper protection. We agree with a lot of criticisms in the panel report and, indeed, expressed some of those criticisms at the last meeting. We want to secure all those provisions, but also the project—that is our intention.
    Mr. George Stevenson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many in the House welcome the Government's priority on the alleviation of poverty? Does she also accept that, no matter how desirable and well intentioned they are, schemes must comply with the regulations laid down by the World Bank? Given that the independent panel review found that seven out of l0 of the World Bank regulations have been violated, will my right hon. Friend make it as clear as possible that until the Government are satisfied that all those regulations have been complied with, they will not support the scheme?
    Clare Short: I am very well aware that people are concerned about the situation in Tibet. I share the concern of those who have opposed this project from the start. My duty is to try to use UK influence to protect the interests of very poor people in China and make sure that that the
    318
    project is good, but not to be swayed by a strong international campaign. I promise the House that I shall try to do that.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: It is very alarming that the Secretary of State will not have made a decision when the meeting takes place tomorrow. Why, when the vote was taken, was it not supported by the United States, Canada, France and Australia, although Britain was for it? When will we see some vestiges of an ethical policy in our dealings with China in a policy that purely legitimises Chinese population transfer and all its obscene implications? The Government are kowtowing to the Chinese again. When will they stop?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is deeply misinformed. China is opening up to the world. Its decision to join the World Trade Organisation is of crucial importance to humanity and the people of China, and will ensure that there is less oppression in China. China's record in reducing poverty in recent years has been very good, but in the most remote and the western parts of the country some of the poorest people live in some of the most inaccessible places. They have human rights to development, to education and to a decent livelihood. We will do all in our power to ensure that all human rights, including those of the poor, are protected everywhere, and that is what we are doing in China.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a principal thrust of the DFID's programme in China thus far has been the development of judicial and civic structures to aid social development and, in particular, the development of human rights? Against that background, is it not right that when the Chinese have decided to switch their attention from the coastal provinces to the poorer inland provinces, we should do our part to assist that project, provided that we can get the assurances that we seek?
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. We have been conducting judicial training, and helping not only in state enterprise reform but with access to education, health care and water in remote provinces with some of the poorest ethnic minorities. I am sure that the House would agree that that is the right thing to do.

    Primary Education
    Mr. Tom Brake: If she will make a statement on progress towards the global provision of primary education by 2015. [127741]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since the publication of our White Paper, we have worked hard to mobilise the international community to meet the target of universal primary education by 2015. We welcome the strong political commitment at the world education forum in Dakar to achieve universal primary education by 2015 and significantly to enhance investment in primary education.
    Mr. Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for her response. Does she accept that, regrettably, gender equity in primary and secondary education is unlikely to be

    319
    reached by 2005? What new targets will the Government argue for? Can she reassure the House that the matter will be discussed at the Okinawa summit?
    Clare Short: Certainly, all the international development targets will be discussed at Okinawa for the first time, and one of them is progress on gender equity in education. In the poorest countries, girls tend to be excluded from school, and educating girls is profoundly developmental for a country. I am not willing to agree with the hon. Gentleman and to write off significant progress by 2005, because we are now making progress on the objective. Let us drive that forward. If we have not achieved the objective in all countries in 2005, we can reassess the matter, but let us not give in now; let us make further progress. I promise the hon. Gentleman that the subject will be discussed at Okinawa.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the target is reached, it will be an enormous step forward because never in human history has it been achieved? Being able to read and write, and to answer back, will make an enormous difference to the ability of people worldwide to cope with all that the world can throw at them.
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. There are 900 million adults in the world who are illiterate. We now have an international commitment to ensure that all children in the world get primary education, and widespread recognition that it is the most powerful development intervention that any country can have. Including girls in education, in particular, transforms a country as the girls grow up and increases the likelihood that their children will survive.
    I am certain that we will make major progress by 2015. We might not achieve the target in every country, and we are less likely to achieve it in war-torn countries, but massive progress is possible. We are the first generation that can look to the elimination of fundamental illiteracy from the world. We can achieve that if we are serious.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Uncharacteristically, I agree with the Secretary of State in that I support the objective of providing universal primary education by 2015. Does she agree that no money earmarked for development should be wasted on bureaucracy and that every penny should be focused on the front line? Why then, since she took office, has she increased her staff by 321, increased her administration costs by £20 million and doubled her Department's publications, including bumf such as vanity publications that cost more than £400,000—enough to double the basic education programmes in Colombia, Mozambique and Nepal? Is it not about time that she spent a little more on the education of children in developing countries and a little less on publicising her own Department?
    Clare Short: The hon. Lady is characteristically wrong, misinformed, inaccurate and not attached to the truth. The Department's spending has grown by £1 billion under this Government, but the budgets shrank and shrank under the administration supervised by the Government of which she
    320
    was a member. Slightly more staff are needed to have a bigger programme, but our staffing is small. There has not been a big increase in administration costs, but we have published the details of all our strategies and programmes—that is freedom of information that was hidden by the previous Government. Publication costs money, but it allows people in developing countries to know about the programmes that are for their benefit. The hon. Lady is misinformed as ever.

    Chad-Cameroon Oil Pipeline
    Mr. David Chaytor: If she will make a statement on the proposed Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project. [127742]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The World Bank is supporting Chad and Cameroon to build a pipeline to take Chad's oil to the Atlantic coast. Chad and Cameroon are both very poor countries. We believe that the World Bank's involvement in the project will help to ensure that measures will be taken to protect the environment and that the benefits of the development will reach the poor.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that, in the long-term, it is far less likely that the exploitation of fossil fuels will bring prosperity to countries such as Chad and Cameroon, and that the World Bank should consider more seriously the development of renewable energy, the potential for which those countries have in abundance? Can she assure the House that she will use her influence at the board of the World Bank to give greater attention to renewable energy projects in future?
    Clare Short: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I agree that renewable energy—solar energy—is very important for the future of humanity and will bring benefits to countries with lots of sun. Chad is one of the poorest countries in the world, but it has substantial oil reserves. Of course Chad must be allowed to exploit those oil reserves, and the World Bank's involvement will ensure that that is done responsibly and that the poor benefit from that. That must be right. I support renewable energy, but Chad has a right to exploit its oil.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what contribution the Prime Minister's initiative group at the Department for International Development makes to the proposed Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project? [Interruption.]
    Clare Short: I did not fully hear the hon. Gentleman; there is an awful lot of noise in the Chamber, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Conversations are much too noisy. The House must come to order. I cannot hear, neither can Ministers. Secretary of State, did you hear the question correctly? Will the hon. Gentleman repeat the question? [Interruption.] Order. We cannot hear. Repeat the question.
    Mr. Wells: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what contribution the Prime Minister's initiative group at the Department for International Development makes to the proposed Chad-Cameroon oil pipeline project?
    Clare Short: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's initiative involves working with the private sector to use information technology in various countries, especially those in Africa, to improve teacher education to meet our primary education objective and to ensure that an educated group of people has access to the new technologies. It is too soon to say whether Chad will benefit, but we are currently reviewing whether we can drive that forward and which countries will benefit. I am very hopeful that Rwanda will benefit, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my pleasure at that.

    Emergency Relief
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What plans she has for setting up permanent stand-by arrangements for emergency relief. [127743]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): A mechanism for international emergency relief already exists under the co-ordination of the United Nations. We are supporting the strengthening of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Our strategy paper on that work is available in the Library. The emergency relief operations of my Department are widely recognised as one of the most effective in the international system. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Before I call Mr. Bruce, I remind hon. Members that I have asked them to cease noisy conversations. I cannot hear, neither can the Secretary of State. Will hon. Members have quiet conversations, if they have any at all? They are here to listen to questions and answers, not to have conversations among themselves.
    Mr. Bruce: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but she will be aware that, during the Mozambique crisis, I contacted her office on behalf of helicopter companies in Aberdeen. Her staff gave a quick and efficient response. I have no complaints about that, but the helicopter companies said that their response could have been greater if there were stand-by arrangements between the Government and private companies, such as themselves, for emergency provision. Is there any possibility that that could be further explored so that we can get the right people, with the right equipment, in the right place and, I entirely accept, at the right price?
    Clare Short: We have stand-by arrangements with health professionals, logisticians, former military people, firefighters and all sorts of people who, overnight, will drop everything to go out to an emergency. Britain should be very proud of them. It is not wise to send helicopters from northern Europe to southern Africa if they can be hired in southern Africa. That is what we did, because it was cheaper and quicker. It was the right thing to do.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Kali Mountford: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 July.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I will have further such meetings later today.
    Today marks the centenary of the passage of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, which established a unique and strong relationship between our countries. I am delighted that we will mark that occasion tomorrow. It testifies to the remarkable and close bonds between our two great countries.
    Kali Mountford: Does my right hon. Friend recall meeting GPs from the primary care group in my constituency last week? Was he impressed, as I was, by their great success and the real changes that they are now able to achieve for patients as they move towards trust status? Is not the last thing that GPs and their patients need a return to the divisive two-tier system that we inherited from the Tories?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The primary care groups have replaced the vastly discredited two-tier system, but more than that, as a result of the additional money that we are able to get into the health service, both primary care services and acute hospital services will be increased. We now know from the Conservative party that it would take £1 billion out of the national health service. That is why every time the issue turns to substance and policy, the Conservatives have nothing to say.
    Mr. William Hague: I join the Prime Minister in his tribute to Australia and ask him to join me in welcoming to the Palace of Westminster five Australian Prime Ministers, including the current Prime Minister, Mr. Howard. On the centenary of the passing of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, will he join me in celebrating the close links between Britain and Australia and the sacrifice made by the people of Australia in upholding freedom and democracy in two world wars? Does he share the hope that the ties between our two great countries will be as strong throughout the next hundred years as they have been over the past hundred?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to join in those sentiments. At my meeting with the Australian Prime Minister yesterday, we agreed that we should establish here a proper and fitting war memorial to those American service men and women who lost their lives—[HON. MEMBERS: "Australian!"] Forgive me: Australian service men and women. [Interruption.] Forgive me. Well, there were many good allies in those conflicts.
    The important thing at this time, when we look ahead at the next hundred years, is to remember just how much sacrifice was made by those Australians who gave their

    323
    lives to defend the whole of the civilised world from fascism and dictatorship. We will be delighted to honour them here in this country.
    Mr. Hague: Australians are straightforward people, so let me ask the Prime Minister a straightforward question. Does he remember announcing a new Government policy last Friday, to a chorus of derision—something that he must be getting used to these days? In what was billed as a major announcement, he said that drunken and violent thugs would be picked up by the police, taken to a cashpoint and asked to pay an on-the-spot fine. Can he tell the House which person in the Government came up with that brilliant idea?
    The Prime Minister: The essence of the proposal of course is that—[Interruption.] The essence of the proposal is that there should be summary justice for disorderly conduct and that there should be—[Interruption.] I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman; he should just listen. There should be on-the-spot fines for those people who engage in disorderly conduct. It is correct that it may be better to do that by fixed penalty notice, but summary justice, on the spot, is the essence of the proposal. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, he will say whether, if we introduce the proposal for summary fixed penalty notices, he will support it.
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Hague: If there were a fixed penalty notice for evading the question, the right hon. Gentleman would be bankrupt by now. The shadow Home Secretary has said that we are happy to look at the principle of using more fixed penalty notices, but what we want to know about is last Friday's announcement, copiously leaked to the press as usual, of
    Blair's shock proposal to stop street violence—
    which was all about people being taken to a cashpoint and given an on-the-spot fine.
    Whose idea was this? It could not have been the Home Office civil servants', because they said that they knew nothing about it. It could not have been the Home Office Ministers', because they called it an "ill judged metaphor". It could not have been the police's idea, because they said it was "ludicrous" and "unworkable". Could it have been anyone in the Labour party? Hands up anyone who thought of it. [Interruption.] The Prime Minister is on his own, again. Who in the Government came up with the obviously fatuous idea of getting drunken criminals to form orderly queues at cashpoints around the country?
    The Prime Minister: On-the-spot fines—[Interruption.] Let us get the right hon. Gentleman off what he likes to talk about, and get him on to the substance. Was he saying a moment or two ago that if we introduce fixed penalty notices on the spot for disorderly conduct, he will support that?
    Mr. Hague: Actually, I was asking the Prime Minister a question, to which he does not give the answer. I am happy to give the answer, as I have about fixed penalty notices. I will be happy to give the answers about Government policy in the future, which he will not give
    324
    at the Dispatch Box today. The truth is that the proposal was yet another gimmick from a Government of gimmicks.
    Three years ago, the Prime Minister announced, with another fanfare, the introduction of child curfew orders as another way in which Labour would fight youth crime. Will he tell the House, three years on, how many child curfew orders have been implemented?
    The Prime Minister: The child curfew orders and the anti-social behaviour orders were part of a Government strategy to deal with unruly behaviour. They are being used, and we want to see them being used more. However, I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he will support on-the-spot fines. [Interruption.] The issue for people out there, when there are people drunk in the street, kicking in their gates, and engaging in drunken disorderly conduct, is whether the police will be given the powers that they need.
    Yesterday we proposed measures on football hooliganism. Let me again challenge the right hon. Gentleman. Today the House of Lords Conservative party said that it would not support those measures. Will he or will he not back us on disorderly conduct and football hooligans—yes or no?
    Mr. Hague: We called for the Prime Minister to deal with football hooliganism two years ago. Just because he did nothing and has mismanaged the parliamentary timetable does not mean that he can get legislation through in a matter of hours.
    What is the answer to the question that we asked the Prime Minister? It is a nice, easy number. It is probably in his folder, if he had a PIN number to get to it. It is a nice, easy number, the number of child curfew orders implemented: zero. Was that what the right hon. Gentleman meant by zero tolerance when he talked about it at the last election? It is yet another gimmick. With violent crime rising—and his gimmicks have done nothing to address it—would it not be a good idea to make violent criminals serve their sentences? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give the House the figure for the number of people convicted of grievous bodily harm and released early, before their normal parole date, by the Home Secretary?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, that proposal was supported by his party. On football hooliganism, we now know today—[Interruption.] The Tories do not like to talk about the substance of the policy. On football hooliganism, we now know today that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to support the measures going through the House of Lords. Let me tell the House also that we have introduced a measure whereby, for breaches of community service orders, benefit is lost. The Opposition oppose that as well. They also oppose the fines on illegal trafficking in illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. As for their record on crime, many people in the country remember that it was under the Conservatives that crime doubled. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to be taken seriously on crime, let him stand at this Dispatch Box—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Maybe he should give us a few answers to some

    325
    questions. Let him stand there now and tell us whether he will back these measures on crime, or whether he will carry on talking about them but doing nothing.
    Mr. Hague: I will stand at the right hon. Gentleman's Dispatch Box and be taken seriously on crime, which he never will. We will support tougher measures on crime going through the House, but we will subject them to proper parliamentary scrutiny, which he has never favoured. The number of people—a figure which, again, he has not given—released early who have committed grievous bodily harm is now 1,654, many of whom have offended again. Three years into the Government—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hear what the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) is calling out. I shall have to move him out of the Chamber if he continues.
    Mr. Hague: Three years into the Government, is it not the truth that they are failing to deal with the real issues, such as crime, because they are so busy with leak and counter-leak, spin and counter-spin, and doing each other down in the press. Is not the fact that the Prime Minister spends his time clutching for another empty headline with a cashpoint announcement instead of getting a grip on his divided and shambolic Government a sure sign of weakness and failure of leadership?
    The Prime Minister: Let us deal with "spin rather than substance". I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not raise today the record number of jobs created by inward investment in this country; the 1 million extra jobs since the election—not spin, substance; the new hospital building programme—not spin, substance; the building work for up to 11,000 schools—not spin, but substance; today's £1 billion programme for science—not spin, but substance; the minimum wage; paid holidays; the right to union representation; the new deal; the working families tax credit—all substance. The truth is, when the debate turns to policy, we will see who is standing.
    Hon. Members: More!
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Resign.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Any more of that and the hon. Gentleman will be out.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: One of the things that I hope that my right hon. Friend will do today is have a look at the petition with 70,000 signatures gathered in Glasgow in support of Govan shipyard. There are voices this morning saying that the future for our yard is bleak. Does my right hon. Friend have any encouraging things to say to the men and women in that yard who have campaigned so hard and so long to save its future?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will recognise that the Ministry of Defence receives the bids tomorrow and will consider them carefully. Other United Kingdom warship orders are coming up, and Scotland can expect to benefit from them, too. For example, it is probable that a type 45 destroyer, first of class, will be assembled and launched on the Clyde. In addition, the Government have
    326
    spent about £500 million on defence equipment from contractors based in Scotland. We must obviously make decisions in the best interests of our shipbuilding industry, but we are well aware of the anxieties of those who work in the Govan yard.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: While I acknowledge the welcome level of investment that has been recorded today, what does the Prime Minister make of the opinion that was expressed to him and the Foreign Office by our ambassador in Japan? The ambassador said that there is a perception among Japanese business men that, unless this country gets firmly on track for membership of the euro, additional future investment will entail unnecessary costs and doubts. Does the Prime Minister agree with his ambassador's analysis?
    The Prime Minister: Before I answer that question, I shall refer to a question that the right hon. Gentleman asked last week and to which I promised an answer. He asked whether the health action zone money had been cut. I have examined the matter carefully. Five different streams of money go to health action zones. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that one had been reduced. However, the other four have been substantially increased, and there will be an overall increase of 37 per cent. in health action zone funding.
    On inward investment, it is extremely important to hold to the policy that we have set out. It is, in principle, for Britain to be part of a successful single currency, while recognising that, in practice, the economic conditions must be fulfilled. That remains our policy. To rule out the euro altogether would be absolutely disastrous for British jobs and inward investment, leading to an immediate loss of jobs and investment. That is why Conservative policy is the surest way I know to lose jobs.
    Mr. Kennedy: On health action zones, the Prime Minister is right about the 37 per cent., but the point of last week's question was that the 37 per cent. increase is a decrease when compared with what the Treasury proposed initially. It will still result in cuts. That is the heart of the matter.
    On the euro, Richard Branson wrote this morning:
    outside the Euro…we will be much poorer both as a nation and as individuals.
    Did the Prime Minister notice that? Does he disagree with Mr. Branson as well as his ambassador in Japan? Is he not in danger of allowing his "prepare and decide" policy to slip into the "wait and see" policy that had such disastrous consequences for his predecessor?
    The Prime Minister: No, because it is a "prepare and decide" policy. Depending on the economic conditions, membership of a successful single currency would be good for British jobs, mortgages and industry. However, membership must depend on the economic tests for the simple reason that if the conditions were not met, membership would not have the beneficial impact that we have discussed. The majority of those who are in favour of our joining the euro in principle recognise that joining now would not be right. It is therefore important to keep to the "prepare and decide" policy, the "in principle" commitment and the tests. We must do that because it is

    327
    best for British people and British industry. Adopting the crazy policy of the Conservative party would prove the fastest way of removing inward investment from this country.
    Mr. David Kidney: Now that the Home Office accepts that it costs more to police rural areas, can my right hon. Friend assure the residents of rural Staffordshire that Staffordshire police will get more money? Does my right hon. Friend agree that wherever people live in Britain, they should be entitled to a police service that is consistently good?
    The Prime Minister: I note that my hon. Friend's force will get an additional 83 officers from the 5,000 extra national recruits in the next two years. I also note that recorded crime has fallen in my hon. Friend's area by 3.3 per cent. The comprehensive spending review is coming up shortly. The extra resources that we are able to invest in the police show the importance that the Government attach to investing in our essential public services—schools, hospitals, law and order and transport. All those investments would be put at risk by the Conservative party's policy, which would mean that, whatever the economic circumstances, tax cuts always come first. When we undertake the comprehensive spending review, the choice will be simple: it will be between investment in the future and a stable economy on one side and an unstable economy and cuts in investment on the other.
    Mr. William Thompson: Is the Prime Minister satisfied that the illegal arms in the Provisional IRA dumps recently inspected by the two international inspectors are now secure and unavailable for use? When will they be put beyond use on a permanent basis, as required by statute, and when will the arrangements be made to deal with the remaining dumps?
    The Prime Minister: It is important that this was a confidence-building measure. It is not the end of the decommissioning process, as I said on the day the measure was announced. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we have a chance in Northern Ireland, with an inclusive Executive now and with a Government who are able to represent all parts of the community, to take the process forward. We know that the confidence-building measure is not the full decommissioning that we need. However, it is a significant step along the way to a more peaceful future for people in Northern Ireland. I believe that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and in the whole of the United Kingdom will welcome it.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced an allocation of £658,000 for the Royal Bolton hospital to build a dedicated eye operating theatre. That is in addition to a doubling, under the Government, of intensive care beds and a significant increase in capacity of the accident and emergency department. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been invited to Bolton to open one or all of these facilities. May I say on my 60th birthday what a wonderful present it would be if he accepted the invitation? I promise to pay for the plaque.
    The Prime Minister: That does not seem to be an offer that I can refuse. I am delighted that that investment is going into my hon. Friend's constituency. Every accident and emergency department throughout the country that needs it is being refurbished. In addition, there is the largest hospital-building programme since the war. [Interruption.] Before the Tories start shouting out, I might add that when we came to office not one hospital was being built under their programme.
    That is the substance, and the difference. We are making an investment in the national health service. The Leader of the Opposition's economic policy means that he would have to cut that investment. Over the past two weeks we have not yet had an answer to explain how the Tories can spend an extra £1 billion on private medical insurance and still keep to the spending plans that we have set out.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Labour Governments are famous for soaking the rich, but with exorbitant petrol taxes the Government are guilty of milking the poor. The car is not a luxury in rural constituencies such as Ribble Valley; it is a necessity. The Prime Minister tells us that the tax is all being earmarked for public services. However, there is a VAT element on higher petrol prices that has given the Chancellor of the Exchequer a windfall VAT tax. Why cannot that tax now be returned to the motorist? When will the Prime Minister stop caning the motorist?
    The Prime Minister: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the Government he supported who introduced the fuel duty escalator. In the past year, less than 2p of the 18p per litre rise in the price of petrol has been fuel duty. The hon. Gentleman is an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, is he not? When the Leader of the Opposition was asked another substance question—another policy question—about whether he would take off any of the petrol duty, he said that he would not because
    We have to be very careful
    about matters of taxation. Conservatives can go round the country telling people how they support the campaign on petrol duty, but the truth is that they are not prepared to make one commitment on it.
    It is true that there was a fuel duty escalator, and in the first two years that increased the price of petrol. We did it for the reasons that I have explained, to get rid of the huge deficit that we inherited from the Conservatives. In the past year, however, the increased price has been the result of rises in the price of oil. Until the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to put his party's policies in order, we will take no lessons from him about these matters.
    Ms Helen Southworth: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the £1 billion investment in science that was announced today, a radical improvement for our national science base which was reduced to impoverishment under the Tories? Further, is he aware that north-west senior scientists, academics, politicians and industrialists are meeting this Friday in Manchester to put, in partnership, the north-west right at the front of the biotech revolution? Will he take a personal interest in the North-West Science and Daresbury

    329
    taskforce to ensure that we get the continued new investment in our north-west science base which our excellence merits?
    The Prime Minister: That is right. I gather that the principal of the university of Manchester has welcomed today's announcement. It is a major investment in science in this country. We do it to ensure not merely that we are educating our people properly, but that we can carry on being the number one place to do business in the whole of Europe. I quote from what the US consultants said just a few weeks ago when asked to look into this:
    The UK rose to 2nd place in the worldwide index as a destination of choice for foreign investors.
    They say that the
    continued pro-business stance of the Blair Government…all underlie this favourable British market position.
    If we carry on running a stable economy and then make the investment in science and education, we have the best chance of a prosperous and successful future for our people; but if we go back to the days of unstable economics, back to the days of deficit financing, and if we turn our backs on Europe, or cut investment, then jobs and prosperity go—again, a substance question.
    Mr. Simon Burns: As a precaution, may I ask the Prime Minister if he would be kind enough to answer the specific question that I am about to ask, rather than the question that he hopes I am going to ask? Is he aware that, today in mid-Essex—I am not interested in the rest of the country—1,600 more people are on a hospital waiting list than on 2 May 1997? Can he explain to my constituents and to me why, in mid-Essex, there has not been a single day since 2 May 1997 when hospital waiting lists have been lower than when the Conservative Government left office?
    The Prime Minister: I will not respond to the hon. Gentleman about the detail of his own constituency because I do not know it, but I will make sure that I get the response. However, if we are to reduce hospital waiting lists—of course, the in-patient lists have come down nationally by 100,000—we have to make an investment in more nurses, doctors and facilities in the health service. [Interruption.] It is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head: he is against that extra investment in the health service. He is going to go into the next election—[Interruption.] Oh, yes. I am afraid that at some point Conservative Members are going to have to answer a few questions on policy. If they go into the next election holding to their tax guarantee, then, as my predecessor, the former leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, said, the only way that their tax policy can be made to add up is swingeing cuts in education and health. That
    330
    is the fact; so although there are people in his area entitled to ask for more money in mid-Essex to cure the waiting list problem, he is not one of them.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: The earlier noise in here must have made our Australian visitors feel quite at home.
    On the question of the programme for the intergovernmental conference, may I ask the Prime Minister if, when he last met the leaders of Austria, Finland, the Irish Republic and Sweden, they discussed the European Union's rapid reaction force? If they did hold such a discussion, did he receive assurances from the leaders of those neutral countries that they would support the setting up of such a force?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we did discuss that and they are supportive of setting up the rapid reaction force. Of course, we have to be very careful of the sensitivities of non-NATO EU member countries, but the whole purpose of the force is to allow us that greater facility to deal with situations that may arise on the doorstep of the European Union, where it is important that European Union member countries co-operate. In defence policy, the work that has been done by the Government in co-operation with other Governments is a classic example of how a positive, constructive attitude in Europe yields the best results for Europe and for the country.
    Mr. David Lidington: So that the Bill on football hooliganism can receive swift passage and proper parliamentary scrutiny, will the Prime Minister agree today to drop from his legislative programme his Bill to restrict trial by jury?
    The Prime Minister: No, I certainly will not. Both those matters go to the heart of the law and order debate on policy. The mode of trial legislation was recommended by a royal commission, it is supported by the Lord Chief Justice, it will hugely increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system and we will be able to use some of the money thus saved in front-line policing.
    Two weeks ago the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) demanded that we introduce emergency legislation on football hooligans and said that he would give it fair passage. We now know what he means by parliamentary scrutiny of every line, dot and comma. Having called for that emergency legislation, he is not prepared to bring people in the House of Lords into line to get it through. What the country should know is that he is standing in the way of policy measures on football hooligans, community service orders—how can he oppose the idea of people having a penalty levied against them if they breach a community service order?—mode of trial, and fines on illegal traffickers. Those measures will deliver decent law and order in this country.

Points of Order
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the half-hour of Prime Minister's Question Time we only reached question 7. Was not one reason for that slow progress the Prime Minister's insistence on answering a question posed to him not this week but last week, by the leader of the Liberal Democrats? If that is to be in order in future, may we expect answers to all the questions we ask the right hon. Gentleman that are never answered? If so, we will not get beyond question 2.
Madam Speaker: It is reasonable for the Prime Minister to correct something that he wanted to correct from last week. In any case, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong: we may have reached question 7 on the Order Paper, but he has perhaps forgotten that the leader of his party put six questions, so that is seven plus six. The leader of the Liberal Democrat party also put two questions, so there were more than seven questions. I can add up too.
Mr. James Clappison: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time about the early release of prisoners on home detention curfew—especially those convicted of grievous bodily harm—I believe I heard the Prime Minister say that that measure had the support of the official Opposition when it came before the House. I was the Conservative spokesman on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and that measure certainly did not have the support of the Opposition at that time. The Standing Committee proceedings will bear that out, and will show that the official Opposition tried to exclude high-risk offenders.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, that is certainly not a point of order. It is a matter of political argument and debate.
Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Prime Minister's questions, the right hon. Gentleman answered a question that was put to him last week. That seems to be a departure from normal procedure. Is it to be part of our procedure in future, so that we can all get our questions answered?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear me earlier. I hope that that will not be the case, but it seemed to me that the Prime Minister was correcting something that he had said last week. I obviously do not want that to happen weekly, and I shall make that known to the Prime Minister and to his Office. I hope that that will help the Opposition.

Community Reinvestment
3.34 pm
Mr. David Kidney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the regulation of financial institutions so as to require them to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs for credit services and deposit services of the communities in which they are regulated to do business; and to require the Financial Services Authority to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are regulated to do business, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.
There was a great outcry when, on one day last April, Barclays Bank closed more than 170 branches. For 86 communities, the decision marked the end of access to any local banking services whatever. Customers complained, community leaders complained, and hon. Members complained, but the decision was not changed. This week, people power was successful in overturning another decision of some banks. The news that plans to charge for the use of cash withdrawal machines have been dropped is very welcome. However, I suggest that those two great issues demonstrate that banks cannot be trusted always to put the interests of their customers first.
Banks make their profits in the communities that they serve, and they should put something back into those communities. The Government believe that. The Government have ambitious plans to regenerate areas of social exclusion, to make cash banking cheaper for the poor and to maintain services in rural areas. The Government see banks as partners in achieving those aims, but seek a voluntary compact rather than a formal system of regulation. I think they are slightly wrong in that, although I certainly share the view that heavy-handed regulation is undesirable. My Bill seeks to achieve a light-touch addition to the current regulation of banks.
The Bank of England Act 1998 transferred the Bank of England's current supervisory powers to the Financial Services Authority. I propose that the FSA's powers be extended to mirror those of United States bank regulators under that country's Community Reinvestment Act 1977. In a moment, I shall describe those powers in a little more detail. However, I stress now that they are not intended to interfere with proper commercial decision making. Regulation must be consistent with safe and sound operation of banks' business activities.
Building on initial work by the social exclusion unit, the Treasury has set to work to tackle problems of financial exclusion. There are many manifestations of social exclusion, but I shall only give the example of the unbanked and the practice of so-called red-lining, which is a refusal to lend to certain areas. I support the Treasury's stated intention of encouraging wider access to financial services for individuals and communities who may be suffering detriment from not having access to facilities such as a bank account or some types of insurance.
I welcome the Cruickshank report on competition in United Kingdom banking. I welcome, too, the reports of the Treasury's policy action teams on "Access to Financial Services" and on "Enterprise and Social Exclusion". The former points the way to developing new and alternative means of delivering and providing banking services, such as the recent suggestion of a universal bank operated by the Post Office. The latter led directly to the Treasury inviting

333
the Bank of England to report regularly on finance for business in deprived groups and communities. I understand that the Bank of England intends to publish its first such report this autumn, with its regular review of finance for small and medium-sized enterprises.
Reports such as those help to inform debate concerning those who have no bank account and those who cannot gain access to suitable finance. They also help to determine the future direction of public policy. The extent of branch closures, for example, has contributed to the policy of offering a basic banking service through post offices. Additionally, the estimate that 3.5 million people are without basic banking facilities has contributed to the Treasury deadline to banks to provide, by October, a new form of basic account.
I believe that for policies such as those to succeed, we have to have the right regulatory framework in place. I want community reinvestment to be a matter of partnership, and the Government of the day to represent the public interest in such a partnership. I want communities to be represented in a variety of ways, including through customer organisations and voluntary organisations such as the Campaign for Community Banking Services. I want the private sector to be represented not least by the banks themselves. However, in my view, the banking regulator should have the powers to ensure that the banks keep their side of the bargain that that partnership reflects.
On the very first page of the Cruickshank report, there is a call for a new policy framework for the relationship between Government and the banking industry. Although I might quibble about the absence of a reference to Parliament, I agree that a new framework is desirable. I argue that, as part of that new framework, there is a need to underpin by statute the very good work that is being done to combat social and financial exclusion.
The Cruickshank report calls for action to be taken in a number of spheres of banking practice, including money transmission, small business markets and the reform of merger law. Although my Bill may not make it to the statute book on this occasion, may I ask Ministers, while they are contemplating implementation of those Cruickshank recommendations, also to consider seriously adjusting the powers of the regulator in the manner that I suggest?
There will be those who will be nervous about calls for additional regulation. There is an understandable fear that it may add to bureaucratic burdens and lessen competitiveness. Let me try to reassure anyone harbouring such fears. The model for my proposal is the US Community Reinvestment Act. America is not generally regarded as a country overburdened by state controls—nor are American banks seen as uncompetitive. However, for more than 20 years, the Act has encouraged banks and financial institutions to meet the credit needs of their communities. A bank's record on serving the community, including disadvantaged sections of it, will be taken into account when regulatory permissions are considered. The regulator's permission is required for such matters as mergers and branch openings.
In 1999, a group of Democrat Senators claimed that the Act's achievements included significantly improved availability of credit in historically under-served communities, a dramatic increase in home ownership by low and moderate-income individuals and investment by
334
commercial banks and thrifts in housing development and rehabilitation and in community economic development. The scale of community financing needs is obviously bigger in the US, but the principle is the same. When I mention that the US initiatives are channelled through community development banks, credit unions, loan funds, micro-finance funds and neighbourhood equity funds, it is plain to see that those initiatives are easily transferable to the UK.
Under the American Act, banks are assessed from time to time against three tests—the lending test, the investment test and the service test. As a result of the assessment, the regulator assigns the bank one of four ratings—outstanding, satisfactory, "needs to improve" or substantially non-compliant. The ratings are made public. Obviously, banks will want to maintain a high reputation by seeking the best rating. If we apply that regime to the example—hypothetical, of course—of a bank in this country that seeks to close a lot of branches, gives little notice of its intentions and makes little effort to provide alternative arrangements for the people affected by the closures, it is difficult to see how a bank that behaved in that way would obtain a rating of outstanding.
Instead, the desire to maintain the best rating might persuade a bank having a commercial plan to close branches first to set in place alternative arrangements for the communities affected. Greater use of information technology, collaborative arrangements with other banks and now arrangements with the local post office are the kinds of measures that could be planned in advance.
In that example of how a community reinvestment Act might bring positive benefits to this country, I chose to highlight branch closures because they have been of concern recently. That issue has illustrated the shortcomings of relying entirely on a voluntary approach in tackling financial exclusion. It is easy enough, however, to imagine other situations in which banking services to communities could be improved because banks would wish to behave in a manner that preserved the best rating.
I started my speech by referring to Barclays' programme of branch closures, so I shall finish with the reported words of Mathew Barrett, the new chief executive of Barclays. Speaking at the bank's annual general meeting in April, he said:
The lesson is clear. Where we have difficult closures, there must be a debate among the people affected and we have to do all that we can to eliminate the inconvenience. We did not. We must do better.
I want British banks to do better, and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Kidney, Liz Blackman, Mr. Tony Colman, Mr. David Drew, Ms Julia Drown, Dr. Lynne Jones, Mr. Andrew Love, Ms Margaret Moran and Mr. Gareth R. Thomas.

COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT
Mr. David Kidney accordingly presented a Bill to extend the regulation of financial institutions so as to require them to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs for credit services and deposit services of the communities in which they are regulated to do business; and to require the Financial Services Authority to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are regulated to do business, consistent with the safe

335
and sound operation of such institutions: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 154].

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
That the draft European Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.
That the draft International Seabed Authority (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Local Government Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, further considered.
  Local Government Bill [Lords]

  PROHIBITION ON PROMOTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY: BULLYING
  '( ). In section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition on promoting homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material), at the end of subsection (2) there is inserted'; or
  (b) prevent the headteacher or governing body of a maintained school, or a teacher employed by a maintained school, from taking steps to prevent any form of bullying.'.—[Mr. Waterson.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  3.45 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in page 74, line 2, leave out clause 98.
  No. 6, in clause 102, page 75, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 and insert—
  'paragraph 63 of Schedule 37 to the Education Act 1996'.
  Mr. Waterson: The new clause and amendments concern what is euphemistically known as "section 28", but more accurately as section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986. Their effect would be pretty straightforward: they would simply return the Bill to its state when it left the House of Lords a little while ago. They would, in fact, do two things. They would reinstate section 28—as I shall continue to describe it, euphemistically—and they would reinstate their lordships' amendment relating to bullying. In other words, Opposition Members seek to overturn the amendments made by the Government in Committee.
  We may have to return to this, but it occurs to me that it might be convenient, in due course, somehow to engineer a vote not on new clause 2 but on amendment No. 7, the key amendment in the group. It seeks to leave out clause 98—in other words, to reinstate section 28, or section 2A. I hope that that is reasonably clear.
  Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I am sure that, in the wake of the conviction of the London nail bomber, the hon. Gentleman, like all other Members, would want to condemn homophobia in all its manifestations. Why, then, does the Conservative party continue to support this nasty little homophobic piece of legislation?
  Mr. Waterson: I will not co-operate with the hon. Gentleman's nasty little press release; but if he has any grown-up contributions to make to this serious and, indeed, narrow, debate, no doubt he will try to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
  Our position, which has been consistent throughout, is very clear. It has never had anything to do with bigotry, prejudice or intolerance. Homosexuality is a personal and

  337
  private choice for consenting adults, and that is as things should be. This provision, however, has never had anything to do with any of that; it is simply to do with whether public money should be spent in schools on promoting homosexuality among children.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waterson: No. I want to make a little progress, because I think some Members are becoming slightly overheated. I intend to deal with every point that they are either muttering about from a sedentary position, or seeking to intervene on.
  The first point to make—one that the Minister conceded in Committee—is that the Government's proposal was not in the manifesto for the last general election, although, curiously, it was in the manifesto for the 1992 election. I do not know whether the Government still intend to whip their Members for the vote, but no doubt their ability to do so will depend partly on what I have just said.
  This nasty little provision is typical of the Government's attitude. We believe that it is based not on principle, but on spin and political correctness. The proposal to repeal section 28—as I shall call it for ease of reference—is on a par with the Prime Minister's ill-fated remarks about cashpoint criminals. It is cheap gesture politics. It is designed to curry favour with the gay and lesbian community, and, in its early stages, it was designed to be part of the Prime Minister's again ill-fated attack on what he was good enough to call the forces of conservatism.
  Sadly for the Government, it turned out that those forces actually represent most people in the country. It is interesting to note that, in a recent survey in the Prime Minister's constituency, 71 per cent. of his constituents—of whom 63 per cent. were Labour voters—said that they wanted section 28 to be retained. It is also noteworthy that the leaders of all the major religious groups take a similar view.
  Mr. Bradshaw: That is a lie.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I heard that.
  Mr. Bradshaw: I apologise, Madam Speaker, and I will retract what I said. Nevertheless, I would like some evidence, because the hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  Madam Speaker: That is another matter. We will not have that sort of language in the House.
  Mr. Waterson: I am afraid the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) will have to contain himself, Madam Speaker. I have got as far as page 2 of my remarks.
  Although more heat than light has been generated on this issue, it is instructive to look at the history. The provision first saw light as a Back-Bench amendment. The Minister glowers—[Interruption.] We are going to have a serious and restrained debate on the matter, whether Labour Members like it or not.
  The amendment was tabled originally by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), and was later supported by the Government. The 1987 debate
  338
  are interesting. Given all the words expended on the issue since, it is worth noting that the amendment was accepted in Committee without a Division.
  Indeed, there seems to have been quite a constructive debate about the correct way to address what was clearly perceived to be a problem. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said that the earlier part of what was then clause 28 of the Local Government Bill was
  a proper statement on what should be the role of local authorities.—[Official Report, 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 990.]
  However, it is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman clearly had criticisms of the rest of the clause. In an amendment, he proposed that the word "commend" be used in place of "promote"—the word that has caused so much controversy. If that had been accepted, one wonders how it might have changed the way in which the provision has been perceived.
  Dr. Harris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, although there was no Division when the proposal was considered in Committee—it happened before my time in the House—Liberal Democrat Members opposed what became section 28 in this Chamber, both then and ever since.
  Mr. Waterson: I am not sure that they were Liberal Democrat Members at the time, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was not trying to suggest that they did not oppose the measure.
  The Minister in charge of the 1987 Bill was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who made the following points. First, he said:
  It is not right for pupils to be taught, in any school, that homosexuality is the norm.
  That does not seem to have met with a great deal of controversy in the debate. He also said:
  I recognise that there may be a need for teachers to touch on the subject of homosexuality in the classroom.
  We, of course, agree with that.
  My right hon. and learned Friend went on:
  In the Government's view, objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, in the way that I suggested a short time ago, would be perfectly proper, because it is not promotion of homosexuality.—[Official Report, 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1019.]
  I think that that is a very fair view.
  A central issue in the debate on section 28 has been bullying. Any lingering concerns on that subject were addressed in the Lords amendment that the new clause would reinstate, but the Government's rhetoric on the matter has moved on. At one time we heard a lot about bullying, but we have heard much less recently. That is probably as well, for reasons that I shall explain.
  Sadly, the Minister does not seem to have kept up with the Government's changes in rhetoric. In Committee, she said:
  I have a view about young people being able to sort out their own ideas in a supportive environment in which they are not subject or vulnerable to bullying because they are unsure about themselves. That is what the measure is about.
  She then went on to say:
  The repeal will remove discriminatory and confusing legislation from the statute book.

  339
  I think that I am quoting the right hon. Lady fairly. She also said:
  People have suffered far too much fear and intimidation…—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 20 June 2000; c. 541–2.]
  That seemed to make the case that bullying was the main evil to be addressed. If that were so, there would be agreement on both sides of the House. However, we take the view that bullying must be tackled whether it is because of someone's hair colour, because they are fat or thin or because of their possible sexual orientation. Any teacher worth the name should be prepared to crack down effectively on bullying as a matter of urgency. There cannot be much disagreement about that. However, for those who take a different view, there is the Lords amendment, which we are seeking to reinstate.
  All too often this argument proceeds by assertion rather than evidence. How much evidence is there of a major problem of homophobic bullying? Back in January, a spokesman at the Department for Education and Employment said
  we don't have any concrete evidence…
  The chief inspector of schools is on record as saying
  My own experience is that there is no evidence that section 28 has had a negative effect on teachers' ability to deal with bullying. No head teacher has raised it with me in all the school visits I have made.
  That seems a pretty telling point, because I cannot imagine that anyone has made more school visits than the chief inspector of schools.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: The hon. Gentleman may be aware, depending on how closely he studies the proceedings of the Select Committee on this matter, that when the chief inspector of schools came before the Select Committee and was questioned on that issue—and, indeed, in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw)—he specifically admitted that he had never raised the issue directly with head teachers.
  Furthermore, a survey was carried out by Mr. Neil Duncan and published by Routledge, and another by the Institute of Education. They showed that 61 per cent. of schools surveyed were aware of lesbian, gay or bisexual pupils in their schools, and that 51 per cent. of those schools had reported at least one instance of homophobic bullying in the past term. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that is ample testimony, whatever the chief inspector's non sequiturs on the subject?
  Mr. Waterson: I am aware of those surveys, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing them into the debate. I think that there are two issues here, and it is important to separate them. One is whether homophobic bullying takes place in schools. I should have thought that it is clear that it does. There are different conclusions from the evidence on how prevalent it is, and to what extent children at a certain age understand the meaning of some of the words they use. The second, more important question is whether, as a result of section 28, teachers feel constrained in from dealing with such bullying.
  Ms Julia Drown: A survey was carried out asking teachers whether they felt reticent
  340
  because of what was on the statute book, even though it is not supposed to affect schools. Some 40 per cent. of teachers believed that the provision did inhibit them from talking properly to some children and students who felt that they were being bullied. Is not 40 per cent. a significant number of teachers who are feeling inhibited because section 28 is on the statute book?
  Mr. Waterson: With respect, I fear that the hon. Lady was eliding two quite separate points. Whether teachers believe that the section affects them at all is yet another issue that we shall discuss. The other issue is whether they are prevented from talking about homosexuality in the classroom. I seriously wonder whether teachers feel constrained when it comes to dealing with bullying for that reason. Bullying is a separate problem, whatever the excuse or ostensible reason for it—there can be no proper reason for it—and we should crack down on it. I do not think that we can separate out homophobic bullying for a particular purpose.
  4 pm
  When we first began to debate some of the issues in the Bill, I wrote to secondary heads in my constituency to find out about their attitude. They held a meeting and wrote to me. Their comments partly relate to the hon. Lady's remarks. The letter stated:
  Jointly, we can say to you that bullying goes on in every school…whatever its causes, Eastbourne Schools, in common with other institutions, are not prepared to accept it… In our experience, there is no single, major root cause of bullying, however, we do work hard through social and moral education to eradicate prejudice.
  That was from Peter Barton, the head of the Causeway school, who is chair of the Eastbourne area education partnership. The letter was written on behalf of the heads of all the secondary schools in my constituency, but I do not think it is untypical.
  Two points arise from that letter. The first is that those heads treat bullying as the problem—whatever its causes. The second is that they obviously do not feel at all constrained in trying to deal with bullying or to eradicate prejudice.
  Not long ago, Mr. Arthur Cornell, a retired and distinguished headmaster in my constituency, wrote to The Times on the issue. He stated:
  Matters of bullying are about demanding dignity and respect for the individual as a human right.
  We can all agree about that. The letter continued:
  If I deal with a pupil who has bullied a boy because he is wearing a turban, there is no suggestion that in doing so I am promoting Sikhism… The claim that Section 28 prevents schools from dealing effectively with bullying arising from homophobia says more about a school's policy on bullying than it does about Section 28.
  That is a pretty good summary of the point I am trying to make.
  Dr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there was a law that schools should not promote the teaching of the acceptability of Sikhism as a pretended religion, that would create real difficulty for teachers? Indeed, it would be an open invitation for the bullying of Sikhs. A child might say, "Miss, I've been told my religion is unacceptable", and the teacher would reply, "Well, that's what it says in the law." The hon. Gentleman's analogy is

  341
  offensive in any case, but he does not seem to realise that the legislation made bullying inevitable, or that there was difficulty in tackling bullying because of the words "acceptable" and "unacceptable".
  Mr. Waterson: I am prepared to concede that the analogy—like most analogies—can be taken only so far.
  I am sure that the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is strapping on her spurs and boots and preparing to climb on to her high horse over this issue—as she did in Committee—to lecture us and the rest of the world, if they are listening, about the purity and goodness of the Government's intentions. To dismantle that argument, one has to begin by considering how the Government's case for repealing section 28—a decision that I am sure they bitterly regret—has subtly changed.
  We used to hear much about bullying. We are still hearing it from the Minister, but she is slightly out of step with the spin doctors—I hope that does not presage anything too awful for her. Recently, the Government have been pushing hard on three issues. The first is guidance. We have heard and will continue to hear much about guidance to schools and to teachers—suddenly, there is a lot of it around. Guidance is welcome as far as it goes. I have not followed the progress of the Learning and Skills Bill as closely as I have the proceedings on this Bill, but there have been some useful debates on the matter. The Government's proposals do not go as far as we would like. However, it is difficult to avoid feeling—as with yesterday's debates on cabinet secrecy in local government—that Ministers see guidance as a way of getting themselves out of a tight spot.
  The second issue is the Government's greater reliance on the argument that the section does not apply to schools at all. I can understand how that argument runs legally. The only problem is that it applies—of course—to local education authorities. Many hon. Members agree that LEAs have some impact on what is taught or not taught in the schools in their area. It seems to be common ground on both sides of the argument that, whatever the law may or may not say, there is much confusion about whether the section applies to schools.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's point about schools, but may I take him back to what he said earlier when he focused on the position in 1988, when the section was introduced? Since then, there has been a revolution in the way in which schools are administered, their budgets handled and decisions taken in them. In the light of that, is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that the parents and the governors who have been empowered to make decisions in that period are no longer to be trusted to make sensible and reasonable decisions about the teaching of homosexuality?
  Mr. Waterson: That is not what I am saying—certainly not. However, those on the other side of the argument really have to make up their minds. On one hand, it is argued that the proposed repeal will be a small piece of tidying up that needs to take place because it is a bad thing to have legislation lurking on the statute book that nobody uses or is likely to use. Certainly, it is clear that nobody has ever used section 28. If that is the case, however, why was there all the excitement and bally-hoo when it was first announced that the section was going to
  342
  be tidied away? The alternative position is that adopted by Mr. Peter Tatchell and Stonewall, who argue that the section has an impact on teachers and on how they choose to arrange matters and to teach. The hon. Gentleman may wish to intervene later when I discuss this aspect in more detail, but, sooner or later, the argument for repeal must decide which colours it is putting its money on or which horse it is backing.
  Sir Peter Lloyd: Those in favour of retaining section 28 must also make up their minds as to whether the changes that were brought in to strengthen the powers of school governing bodies and to give parents a central role on those bodies are working or not. The tenor of my hon. Friend's argument is that those changes are so weak that parents cannot ensure that inappropriate teaching does not happen in a school. If he thinks that, presumably he will suggest further legislation to make governing bodies really effective in the way that the previous Conservative Government thought they had done.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and it will be interesting to hear what Ministers have to say about it. I want to make progress, but these are detailed issues and they deserve detailed debate.
  The confusion as to whether the section applies to schools also extends to such Olympian characters as the Prime Minister. He said:
  We believe…in getting rid of section 28. That is not because we believe it right to promote homosexuality but because we believe it is right for school teachers and others to be able to explain to children properly the facts of life.—[Official Report, 19 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 840.]
  The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be under the impression that they were prevented from doing that by the legislation.
  I wish to put on record my gratitude to Angela Mason of Stonewall for providing information on this issue. We have not necessarily agreed, but she has been very reasonable and reasoned in her representations to me. In a letter to me, she said that
  there has been enormous confusion about how the section applies in schools.
  Another information sheet produced by Stonewall refers to a string of occasions on which local authorities and educational institutions have been stopped from doing things that they would otherwise have done. One of the most well-known examples is that of Corby borough council which wanted to set up a Corby lesbian line.
  The third issue about which we have heard something, although not a great deal, appears on the face of the Bill. It is suggested that section 28 is somehow objectionable under the European convention on human rights. It is a convention that the Government do not show us the legal opinions that they receive, but I have seen other opinions that suggest the opposite. Commission case law on the subject has consistently held that same-sex relationships fall outside the family-life provisions of article 8 of the convention. At the very least, the point is arguable. Indeed, there is an argument the other way: parents might feel able to bring a case under the convention if section 28 were repealed and certain things happened as a result.

  343
  I could speak endlessly on the legal aspect, but I suspect that I would lose the attention of the House—
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Waterson: Let me finish the sentence. I shall not at all insist that Ministers break with precedent and show us the legal opinions that they have received, but the Minister for Local Government and the Regions could be a little more forthcoming in this debate than she was in Committee in talking us through the sudden appearance of the certificate in the Bill.
  Mr. Marsden: The hon. Gentleman mentions the Human Rights Act 1998 and European Court judgments. It is obviously of great satisfaction to those of us on the Government Benches that the Opposition are taking such a keen interest in matters European. However, may I refer the hon. Gentleman to something domestic in this respect? As he will know, section 28 refers to the unacceptability
  of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship,
  which presumably, by moving the new clause, he wants to entrench in the Bill. Is he therefore in conflict with the House of Lords judgment in September, in which Lord Nicholls and Lord Slynn of Hadley said in the majority decision on Fitzpatrick v. Sterling housing association that same-sex partners could be considered to be family members?
  Mr. Waterson: I have a feeling that that case was to do with the Rent Acts. If it is the case that I am thinking of—it may not be—their lordships made it abundantly clear that their decision only concerned matters affecting the Rent Acts. No doubt we can look at that later.
  The fourth point made—in a sense I have dealt with it in response to interventions—is that, as there have been no prosecutions, the provision does not matter. I have made the points on that, which are clear. Either the provision is a dead letter and nobody worries about it, in which case why all the fuss, or it has been having an effect and we therefore need to debate it.
  Perhaps the worst aspect of this issue is what it reveals about the Government's metropolitan attitudes—their domination by a liberal elite who are out of touch with most people and even with large tracts of their own party's supporters. The provision simply does not pass the Kilfoyle test. An awful lot of decent Labour Back Benchers, many with religious convictions, will, if whipped, vote with a heavy heart.
  By contrast, ours is a common-sense approach that seeks to prevent the abuse of taxpayers' money and to give parents the reassurance that they want and deserve. We have always felt that the provision was tacked on to the end of this substantial Bill because it seemed to the spin doctors like a good idea at the time, and would distract attention from the much more important provisions affecting local government. I hope and expect that the Lords will stand firm again on this issue, as on others, because on this issue, as on others, they are more in tune with the views of the British people than this Government.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Waterson: I will not give way.
  344
  Have no fear: Government spokesmen are already spinning that they will have to drop the abolition of section 28 if they do not want to lose the whole Bill. I hope that the same attitude applies to the fourth option that we discussed yesterday. It is time for the Government to see sense, abandon their obsession and move on.
  4.15 pm
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Section 28 has always been highly controversial. It most certainly did not achieve all that its supporters claimed for it—nor will its repeal alter in any significant way the homophobic attitudes and prejudices in our society. The repeal of section 28 would not have stopped the London nail bomber killing innocent people in a pub. It would have made absolutely no difference. Section 28 applies only to local authorities, and cannot be invoked against individuals, companies or other publicly funded bodies such as the Arts Council, the BBC and the Health Development Agency.
  It therefore follows that section 28 does not inhibit or prevent teachers and school governors from including in their school curriculum the teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality as an alternative form of family relationship, should they so desire. In fact, the guidelines make the matter quite clear when they state:
  This prohibition applies to the activities of local authorities themselves, as distinct from the activities of governing bodies and staff of schools.
  Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend referred to the London nail bomber and said that there is no connection. Does she not accept that he was motivated by homophobia and that a discriminatory piece of legislation such as section 28 is, by its very nature, homophobic?
  Miss Smith: It is extremely sad that that evil person, the London nail bomber, carried out those acts. However, that has nothing to do with section 28, and saying that it does is a red herring. Would the London nail bomber have considered whether or not section 28 was in operation before he carried out those bombings? Of course not.
  Section 28 does not apply to schools and should not affect the delivery of sex and relationship education in schools. It does not affect the activities of school governors or teachers; nor does it prevent objective classroom discussion of homosexuality. Schools can provide counselling, guidance, advice and support to all pupils. Any claim that section 28, in itself, stops homosexuality being discussed in schools is clearly unfounded. It is complete and utter nonsense to claim that section 28 inhibits schools or teachers from having in place appropriate measures to deal with cases of homophobic or other types of bullying.
  For many years, I have had close contact with schools and teachers in my area. They have raised a host of issues with me, but on no occasion has a teacher, head teacher or school governor brought to my attention any problems arising from the implementation of section 28. It would appear that the chief inspector of schools has had a similar experience, as we heard earlier that the issue of section 28 has not been raised in any of the schools that he has visited. Indeed, it has not come up in Ofsted inspections as a matter affecting schools.
  Mr. David Borrow: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend. Is she coming to the

  345
  conclusion that, as section 28 has had no impact on what happens in schools, it is redundant and therefore there is no need for the House to seek to reintroduce it into the Bill?
  Miss Smith: Section 28 is certainly redundant for schools, but I shall come on to the promotion of homosexuality in relation to local authorities, which is what this debate should be about.
  I would be surprised—I am willing to accept interventions on the matter—if anyone could produce a teacher or head teacher who was prepared to say that he or she allowed bullying in school and did not take preventive measures to stop it immediately because of concern about falling foul of section 28. Teachers would not let that happen.
  Mr. Phil Willis: I am not as distinguished a former head as the head to whom the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred. However, the matter is not simply about heads not giving way to bullying; it is about how we deal with the issue of inculcating into young people respect for those who are different. That is the challenge, and I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would address that issue, rather than the spurious argument that head teachers or teachers could condone bullying which, in fact, they do not.
  Miss Smith: Teachers and head teachers are not affected by section 28; it does not apply to schools. New guidelines have been issued since section 28 was introduced. It is a complete red herring to suggest that it affects schools or the teaching in them. It is for governing bodies and teachers to decide what they wish to teach.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Has my hon. Friend seen the evidence based on research that the health and education research unit of the university of London published in November 1997, called "Playing it safe"? The research, carried out among secondary schools in England and Wales, arrived at clear conclusions that teachers and governors felt that section 28 applied to schools, even though it technically did not, and that it influenced their perception of how they should do their job in terms of meeting the needs of young people.
  Miss Smith: I am not surprised that there is confusion in schools, because there seems to be rather a lot of confusion in the House. Many Members of Parliament seem not to understand that section 28 does not affect schools. People, especially hon. Members, would do well to research the matter thoroughly and to pass that information on to head teachers in their constituencies. If they are confused, I am not surprised that they are sending out confusing signals, which have been picked up by teachers and head teachers.
  Another widely quoted piece of nonsense, which is offered as a reason why section 28 should be repealed, is that its existence somehow acts as a barrier to building a more tolerant and inclusive society. Those who foster that myth are, of course, completely unable to show that the introduction of section 28 caused an upsurge in homophobic activity or that its repeal will have the reverse effect.
  Mr. Borrow: At the heart of section 28 lies a statement that promoting homosexuality as a pretended family
  346
  relationship is unacceptable. Does not my hon. Friend feel in any way that that introduces into legislation the suggestion that homosexual relationships are unacceptable and that gay people who have long-term family relationships with someone of the same sex are in a pretended relationship, not one of merit? Does not she consider that that contributes to homophobia?
  Miss Smith: I think that section 28 was badly drafted and that it could have been amended, but I do not believe that it is the role of local authorities to promote homosexuality or, indeed, any other form of sexuality. That is not their job; it is not what local ratepayers expect them to do.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because she is dealing with the important relationship between section 28 and local authorities. If she will not accept that section 28 has inhibited what can be taught or done in schools, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, will not she at least accept that it is now having an inhibiting and negative effect on the health education and promotion that local authorities can provide? I refer to the case that has been brought against Glasgow city council, as a result of which all its funding for HIV and AIDS groups has been stopped. The basis of that case is that such activity contravenes section 28. Is not that a clear and unambiguous example of how section 28 inhibits the health education activities of local authorities?
  Miss Smith: Section 28 makes it clear that health promotion should not be stopped and that HIV and other information can be provided by local authorities.
  I shall make progress. The fact that this matter is once again being debated in Parliament and that it has received much coverage has given a platform to every homophobic group and presented them with an opportunity to whip up anti-homosexual feelings among the public. We have seen that recently in newspapers and on television.
  On the subject of inclusiveness and tolerance, may I say that the intolerant way in which the party Whips are being used for this debate on a topic that is essentially a matter of conscience leads me to believe that the major parties in this place have much to learn about tolerance?
  The core of the issue is section 28(1), which states:
  A local authority shall not—
  (a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality.
  Section 28 is part of the civil law, not the criminal law. It therefore regulates what a local authority may do but does not create any criminal offences. In theory, any ratepayer could apply for a judicial review of a local authority action or decision that might appear to be in breach of section 28. If that was successful, the court could, for example, make an injunction restraining the authority from continuing with its action. No damages or fines could be awarded.
  Mr. Borrow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Miss Smith: No. I must make progress. I have taken several interventions.
  Let us be honest. When we strip aside all the hot air and red herrings that have littered the debate, we are left with this simple question: should local authorities be

  347
  allowed to spend taxpayers' money on the promotion of homosexuality? My answer to that question is a clear and unequivocal no, not on the promotion of homosexuality or any other form of sexual relationship.
  Given that the only real effect of repealing section 28 would be to remove the prohibitions that prevent local authorities from spending their taxpayers' money in that way, one can assume only that those in favour of the repeal are in favour of local authorities having the ability to promote homosexuality directly.
  Dr. Harris: Will the hon. Lady clarify—
  Miss Smith: I am sorry; I am trying to make progress.
  I find it odd that so many supporters of repealing the section are silent on that point. Section 28 is badly drafted, and I understand why many would find the wording objectionable. That could well be improved by amendment, but no such amendments have been tabled. However, it provides the public with an important safeguard against the irresponsible actions of some local authorities, and until a credible alternative is found, it should remain.
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am grateful to be called to speak after the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), whose speech contained a huge amount of common sense. I find myself agreeing with most of what she said. She spoke in practical terms, and it is important that we bring our practical experience to the debate.
  I know that others want to speak, so I shall make a brief contribution from the perspective of a mother of young children who have yet formally to receive their sex education in school. I am deeply concerned about the way in which that is taught. I know that I am not alone in that, because in the playground parents come up to me and tell me of their fears about the implications of repealing section 28.
  Young people are increasingly being encouraged by various media to experiment with sex. The fact that this country has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and the highest incidence of sexually transmitted disease in Europe is nothing to be proud of. As parliamentarians, we must work together to try to do something about that.
  I read from cover to cover a copy of a teaching guide—yes, it is called a teaching guide—produced by Avon NHS health promotion trust. I was dismayed to find that the health authority has produced a written guide, teachers' notes and a video aimed at years 9, 10 and 11. Things have changed since my day, so for the benefit of the House, I should explain that that means 13, 14 and 15-year-olds.
  On the video, speaking to the camera, a young boy says:
  Try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  4.30 pm
  Mrs. Spelman: There have been many interventions in this debate. We all have brief contributions to make, and I should like to see mine through. The hon. Member for
  348
  Morecambe and Lunesdale took many interventions, making it difficult to follow her points, so I should like to persist.
  Avon health authority spent £9,000 of public money on that material, basically aimed at encouraging people to break the law on the age of consent. With section 28 in place, that material, which was produced by the health authority for schools—why else would there be accompanying teacher's notes?—should not be used in any way. Certainly taxpayer's money should not be used to encourage children to break the law on the age of consent for sexual intercourse.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: The hon. Lady referred earlier to teenage pregnancies, which I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree is an important issue, which should be addressed. Does she therefore feel that to teach girls of 14 or 15 about sexual activity with a view to discouraging teenage pregnancies would be a bad thing, in the same way as she seems to be saying that for boys of that age to be taught about sexual activity would be a bad thing?
  Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman is trying to distract me from the words:
  Try experimenting—
  experimenting, if you please—
  with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.
  Mr. Hall: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: No, I have made my point. I do not want my children to be encouraged to experiment with children of their own sex or the opposite sex at the tender age of 13, 14 and 15. I feel incredibly strongly on that point. If that is the only point that I make in the House tonight, I want to make it most forcefully.
  The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said that section 28 was poorly drafted, and I tend to agree. As parliamentarians, we could do something to make it clearer. None the less, it acts as a deterrent on my local authority, preventing it from purchasing documents, such as the one to which I have referred, to distribute within the schools for which it has responsibility, and I want to see that deterrent retained.
  Closer to home for me is the booklet produced jointly by Birmingham city council and Birmingham health authority, the target group for which is local youth groups, which, in a couple of years, children of mine will be eligible to attend. That booklet also portrays under-age children experimenting with sex. Both from my perspective as a parent and with my interest in health matters, I find its cavalier attitude towards the attendant health risks irresponsible.
  Referring to sexually transmitted diseases, the booklet says on page 86:
  They are just part of life, as common as colds and flu.
  Yet on page 88, the same booklet says:
  Sexually transmitted infections don't just go away, they are not like colds.
  Apart from the obvious point—
  Mr. Hall: The hon. Lady has clearly read the document to which she has just referred, and I am pleased that she has. She quoted from a video called "Beyond a Phase" made by Avon health authority. Has she seen that video?
  Mrs. Spelman: Yes, I have watched that video, and I replayed it twice to make sure that I had the words of the young lad. Do I need to repeat them? For such words to be presented to children is most shocking. He said:
  Try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with.
  Any parents of my acquaintance who hear those words want a law in place that would prevent their children from being exposed to such material.
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Lady has told the House that she has watched the video; will she confirm that it included several interviews with young people who expressed their abhorrence of gay activity and put the other side of the case?
  Mrs. Spelman: The video contains a wide range of information, but it also includes something that should not be presented to young children. I would not wish my children to watch that.
  The Birmingham health authority document was also produced with taxpayers' money. Apart from the blatant inconsistency of claiming on one page that sexually transmitted diseases resemble colds and stating on the next page that they do not, the document flies in the face of information that a health authority is in a position to promote differently. Britain has the biggest increase in sexually transmitted disease among teenagers; since 1988, the figure for teenage women has doubled. Who could possibly describe a disease such as chlamydia as anything like a cold? It can lead to pelvic inflammation, ectopic pregnancy and infertility. It is grossly irresponsible of a health authority, which has joint local authority funding, to issue a document that encourages young people to experiment with sex and describes sexually transmitted diseases as resembling a common cold.
  In a Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions press notice of 26 November last year, the Government state that they want to create
  local government that listens to what people really want—how they want to be governed and how they want their services to be delivered.
  Parents do not want section 28 to be repealed. If it is repealed, how can we protect our children from materials such as "Beyond a Phase"? How can a taxpayer prevent public money from being spent on a document that contains misleading information and on documents—such as that produced by Birmingham health authority—that compare sexually transmitted diseases to a cold?
  As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, section 28 is almost the only route whereby a taxpayer can call for a judicial review of whether a health authority should be allowed to spend taxpayers' money on the documents that I have described. For me, that is an overwhelming argument for retaining the section.
  Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) because I hope that my contribution will contrast starkly with hers. I disagreed with almost everything she said. I also disagreed with
  350
  almost everything that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) said, although I agreed with two points that she made. First, the hon. Lady was right to say that there is an urgent need in society for everyone to be more tolerant. I hope that my contribution is founded on the principle of the need for greater tolerance. I also agree with the hon. Lady that section 28 is badly drafted. However, we reached different conclusions about the action that we should take.
  New clause 2 has barely been mentioned. I hope that we will be able to vote on amendments Nos. 6 and 7, which are at the heart of the matter that we are debating. I want to deal with those amendments in my speech. The House is familiar with what section 28 purports to do, but it is worth reminding hon. Members of that. It purports to prevent local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality. It forbids councils to publish material that has the intention of promoting homosexuality and to promote teaching in their schools of
  the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
  In Committee, we agreed that we wanted to see the back of section 28. Our debate today is about whether we want to change the decision that we made in Committee.
  We made a great deal of progress in our deliberations on the Bill yesterday. We made several changes on matters such as equality of entitlement to pensions by different categories of councillors, indemnity for councillors and subjecting executives to greater public and media scrutiny. I am delighted that those changes were agreed. However, I hope that no changes will be made today to what was agreed in Committee. I hope that we shall continue to support the repeal of section 28.
  Leaving aside Liberal Democrats' abhorrence of discrimination that is based on sexual orientation, there are three key reasons why I shall continue to oppose attempts to retain section 28. First, we believe that the section is a redundant piece of legislation as it affects schools. Secondly, it is meaningless in both legal and common-sense terms. Thirdly, it has led to much confusion among teachers about whether they can deal with issues involving homosexuality in schools, and especially homophobic bullying.
  The repeal of section 28 alone should not be the issue. We should be concerned also with what will replace it. I was disappointed when the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said that he had not been studying carefully the passage of and deliberation on the Learning and Skills Bill. That Bill reflects clearly the Government's intention, with Liberal Democrat support, to replace the current arrangements in respect of section 28.
  I referred to three reasons. The first is the redundancy of section 28. I am confused when those on the Opposition Front Bench are seeking to retain the section to give powers to local education authorities on the very day when we read in newspapers that it is the Conservative plan to abolish LEAs. I find confusion in Conservative thinking.
  Mr. Waterson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman sort it out for me.
  Mr. Waterson: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of dragging us both out of order. It is not our policy to abolish local education authorities, but I fear that it is the Government's policy.
  Mr. Foster: If that is so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be rapidly firing off a letter to, for example, Mr. John Clare, the education editor, who believes that that is what the leader of the Conservative party announced only yesterday. I could cite others.
  Leaving aside Conservative plans for the future of LEAs, I hope that at least the Opposition will agree that it was a Conservative Government who made head teachers and governing bodies, which include parents, responsible in law for all relations relating to sex education within their schools in the Education Act 1996. Heads, governors and parents have total control of sex education and the teaching material that is used in their schools. They are free to reject any material that is sent to them by the LEA, campaign groups, health authorities or anyone else. In addition, parents have a right to withdraw their children from sex education. If we trust parents, head teachers and governors to be responsible for running our schools, managing quite significant budgets and ensuring that schools meet requirements and statutory duties, surely we can trust those people to be responsible for sex education.
  Local education authorities now have no direct responsibility for sex education in our schools, whether that relates to issues of homosexuality or otherwise. For that reason, and that alone, we should be repealing section 28. It is entirely redundant legislation.
  Secondly, in legal and common-sense terms, the section is nonsensical for the following simple reason. Homosexuality cannot be promoted. It is not possible to do so. We might as well introduce a Bill that forbids the promotion of left-handedness. As they grow up, some young people will start to realise that they are attracted to those of the same sex. Most of them do not. However, homosexuality is not taken up like train spotting or even joining the Conservative party. Young people cannot be persuaded to become gay, but the crucial thing that should matter to every hon. Member is that those young people need care. They need guidance. They do not need their lives to be made more difficult by decisions in the House.
  4.45 pm
  The third reason is that section 28 has undoubtedly, despite what some hon. Members have said, led to great confusion among teachers about whether they can or cannot deal with issues of homosexuality in school.
  Mrs. Spelman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Foster: Of course I will.
  Mrs. Spelman: I appreciate that on a kind of 15-all basis.
  The hon. Gentleman has said that homosexuality cannot be promoted. However, on the encouragement of young people to experiment with the same sex, does he not accept that particularly younger boys in their teenage years often go through a period of confusion and that encouraging them to experiment just makes that worse?
  Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady has clearly got hung up on the Avon health authority video. Let me say, although I
  352
  was going to come to it a bit later, that I happen to agree with her. I do not think that it was a particularly helpful video, but I draw her attention to the fact that, under the legislation that her Government introduced, it would be for the governing body of the school to decide whether to use it. It is not a matter that we can determine here, but, in fairness to her, I think that she was right to draw our attention to that video and to some of the remarks within it, which I genuinely believe were not helpful to the case that I and other right hon. and hon. Members seek to make.
  The key point is that section 28 causes confusion in the minds of teachers as to how they are to respond to issues of homosexuality and, in particular, to the issue of homophobic bullying. Indeed, it has put confusion in the minds of some council officers as to how they can or cannot provide services for gay and lesbian council tax payers and others.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne suggested that there is no evidence that section 28 has caused the confusion that I have described. Such evidence has already been cited by the hon. Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Bedford (Mr. Hall). Other examples can be cited. I wish to use just one: the evidence provided by my noble Friend Lord Tope. He has gathered a considerable body of evidence, which is, incidentally, informing some work by the Institute of Education at London university. His evidence from school pupils, their parents and teachers testifies to harrowing personal experiences of homophobic bullying, ranging from verbal abuse and the ruining of books and clothing to physical attacks. Perhaps the most tragic of all the episodes that he came across was that of Darren Steele, a 15-year-old comprehensive schoolboy in Northamptonshire, who committed suicide following years of such abuse. Some of the young people who wrote directly to Lord Tope spoke of their own attempts to take their own lives.
  In many cases—not all, but in many—the accounts that Lord Tope received pointed to the apparent inability of teachers and adults who knew about the bullying to interfere. A constant theme in those accounts was, "Teachers say they cannot do anything because of section 28." We all know that teachers have got it wrong. We absolutely accept that the correct interpretation of section 28 should not have led to that situation, but the reality is that it has. Far better then that we remove that legislation and replace it with an acceptable alternative. I fear that some of the evidence that has been given to Lord Tope suggests that some of the teachers themselves have perhaps been homophobic. I am sure that no hon. Member would condone that.
  As I have said, I accept that there have been some examples that have not been helpful—I have referred to the Avon video—but what matters above all is not the symbolism of removing section 28, but what it is replaced with, which is why it is so important that all hon. Members study carefully what has been done and said during consideration of the Learning and Skills Bill.
  As the House will know, that Bill had its Third Reading on 27 June. The guidance under that legislation has three main elements that are relevant to this debate. The first is
  learning the value of family life, marriage and stable and loving relationships for the nurture of children.

  353
  The second is
  learning to make choices based on an understanding of difference and with an absence of prejudice.
  The third is
  learning the reasons for delaying sexual activity, the benefits to be gained from such delay, avoidance of unplanned pregnancy.
  I hope that all hon. Members entirely agree with those words. We should be debating those elements and the regulations and guidance that will flow from that.
  I support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who on 27 June sought assurances that there would be time for a parliamentary debate on the detail of the guidance. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions is not responsible for that legislation, but I hope that she will be willing to seek an assurance from her right hon. and hon. Friends that there will be such a debate, and I hope that the issue will be taken forward with cross-party support.
  Reference has already been made to the difficulties that section 28 has created, such as the situation in Glasgow. It is relevant to repeat the facts of that case. Mrs. Sheena Strain, a Glasgow nurse, with the support of the Christian Institute, has brought a case against Glasgow city council for funding organisations that have given valuable support to gay and lesbians on health issues, to carers of people with HIV and AIDS and to young people in distress over their sexuality.
  The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale rightly reminded us that section 28(2) states that that should not happen. It shows the confusion created by section 28 that such a case can be brought, and is another reason why we should repeal section 28 and replace it with appropriate alternatives.
  My party's constitution says that we exist to build a society in which
  no-one shall he enslaved by conformity.
  My party rejects all prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation, and opposes all forms of entrenched inequality. We went into the last general election with a manifesto that made it clear that we wanted section 28 to be repealed. I hope that I have given a clear outline of the reasons why we want its repeal. I hope that we will have an opportunity to vote specifically on that issue. I and many of my colleagues will be in the Division Lobby to continue our support for the repeal of section 28.
  Ann Keen: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in a debate on the repeal of section 28, which I, and many hon. Members, believe does nothing to foster tolerance in our society. We are half way through a new year of a new century, but yet again we are having to beg for tolerance. That is unacceptable.
  Virtually all Members present on the Opposition and the Government Benches want a tolerant and fair society. I know that my colleagues support organisations that want the repeal of section 28. We take their advice and we use their knowledge. Organisations such as Barnardos, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and those that represent my own nursing profession are concerned with the physical and mental health of our young people. Surely we all remember our
  354
  teenage years—it is not that long ago—and those difficult times when we needed to talk about how we felt about difficult subjects.
  Are we saying that homosexuality does not exist? Are we saying that homosexuals are not equal to other people? If we are, we should say that that is how we feel. If hon. Members feel that way, they should have the courage to say so, and not hide behind section 28 by saying that it is about protecting young people. Section 28 does nothing to protect young people. The organisations that I have mentioned would not say that section 28 did not protect young people if it did. I think that we all honour those organisations.
  All our young people are entitled to have their lives valued equally. Surely all our young people in families should be allowed openly to discuss within their family how they feel. Of course they should do that privately. However, those families will require guidance and support. For some families, such discussions are an extremely difficult and stressful time. In fact, some parents do not respond positively to young people who express their sexuality. Very sadly, some families ask their young people to leave home. Many young homeless people on the streets of this city and others across the United Kingdom are there because they do not have their family's support.
  Some of those young people are also afraid to go to their teachers. I am not talking about all teachers, and would not for a moment suggest that all teachers are not capable of using sensitivity and discussing privately the feelings of young people. We are, however, discussing a matter of perception.
  I genuinely believe that not one hon. Member who has spoken in this debate wants to foster an intolerant or prejudiced society. However, such a society already exists. I believe that, when I spoke on this issue previously, I offended some hon. Members by saying that intolerance gives rise to actions such as David Copeland's bombing. As I also said on that occasion, however, I do not believe that any hon. Member would attempt to justify or in any way to support such an act. Nevertheless, the longer ignorance and intolerance continue, the more people will feel that they are acceptable.
  Hon. Members do not in any way support racism or homophobia, because those traits are wrong and should not be supported. It is as simple as that. It is also wrong for anyone to feel intimidated. Earlier, when my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) was speaking, some of my hon. Friends tried to intervene, and other hon. Members told her not to be intimidated. I well understood why my hon. Friend wanted to continue her speech. However, was that really intimidation? What about intimidation at school, at work, or in one's own family? Surely that intimidation cannot be acceptable.
  I have received very many letters about the issue, including some printed reply slips from a certain newspaper, which said, "Please do not do anything to repeal this provision." Some articles on the issue are extremely ignorant and have frightened many people. They certainly do not demonstrate the behaviour of a responsible newspaper.
  Nevertheless, one man has written to me to say that, in the mid-1970s,
  The climate was such that homosexuality was a taboo subject and so there was no support system for me to turn to when I was raped at 13 by a "heterosexual" man of 30. When I confided in another

  355
  pupil, I was then repeatedly seriously assaulted by gangs of older pupils and no help, guidance or support was offered by the staff. I also felt unable to involve my family, due to the general hostility and ignorance which prevailed in society at that time.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: I think that every hon. Member would agree that that is a tragic story. However, what does it have to do with the repeal of section 28? Section 28 does not affect schools; it deals only with the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities. It is quite a specific provision. My hon. Friend is introducing red herrings into a debate in which there have already been too many.
  5 pm
  Ann Keen: I do not believe that my hon. Friend's comments stand up. The issue is not a red herring if people feel that they cannot ask for advice, or when those who have responsibility for young people who have been bullied feel that they cannot deal with the problem. It is a real issue if people feel intimidated.
  We have talked about sex education and teenage pregnancies and I know personally how much we need education in that area. Such education must be offered openly and with parental consent, and applied with good common sense and guidance. That is what we should provide for our young people today. We need that because, sadly, our society is not perfect. It does breed bigots and people who deliberately promote prejudice. Open discussions have changed minds on this issue. However, I cannot accept that religious groups, who claim to protect people, should also promote prejudice.
  It is time that we listened to the organisations that are skilled in dealing with young people and those responsible health professionals who argue that, as well as sex education, we should provide education about drug addiction. Do we really think that such education would lead people to become drug addicts? We should tell young people about the issue, because it might affect their families, themselves, their friends or people with whom they will work, study or socialise in future. That applies in the House itself. All hon. Members are different, and we show amazing tolerance to each other. That is good, and can show the House at its best. I hope that today's debate sees the end of intolerance and that we can give families, parents and our young people at schools the opportunity to talk openly without prejudice and to protect each other while still being proud of their differences.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I congratulate the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith). During my first Parliament, I ended up speaking out against almost my entire party on a particular issue, and it is a lonely and difficult business. I do not think that some of her hon. Friends did themselves or the House any favours by intervening on her repeatedly, sometimes before she had finished a sentence. If ever I saw intolerance, it was then.
  The House is probably united in the belief that what should be taught in schools should be a matter for the governors. All hon. Members who have touched on the issue have agreed on that, and I endorse that point. I am afraid that that is the only point of consensus that I shall make this afternoon, but I shall add a few brief remarks to the excellent contributions we have already heard from hon. Members on my side of the argument.
  356
  Every so often, somebody introduces a red herring and says that the section does not make any difference. But the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) is not an isolated one. There are others from various sources. Grampian health authority warned that teachers should not use
  resources which advocate monogamy or marriage as a solution to HIV.
  A north London health authority produced a curriculum of material, including gay material, to be used in primary schools.
  The fact that nearly all the worst examples come from health authorities not covered by section 28 suggests to me that the section is making a difference. Why else should health authorities produce material of this sort, while education authorities are not? As we have been rightly reminded again and again—first by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), and then by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale—section 28 applies only to education authorities.
  Dr. Peter Brand: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brazier: By all means—although I do not intend to make a habit of it, as others wish to speak.
  Dr. Brand: Might not the reason for health authorities' eagerness to provide information be the fact that health professionals are well aware of the misery that intolerance of homosexuality creates?
  Mr. Brazier: The job of health authorities clearly relates to the health of the nation. Producing a video encouraging 13 and 14-year-olds to experiment with sex, heterosexual and homosexual, does not make an obvious contribution to the health of the nation. But the only point that I am trying to make is this: no one can seriously argue that section 28 is a dead letter or an irrelevance when organisations not covered by it are producing such material, while, on the whole, organisations covered by it—education authorities—are not. It is clearly making a difference.
  The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The hon. Gentleman may not know that an amendment tabled to the Learning and Skills Bill covers his point. It will ensure that health authority guidance is subject to exactly the same conditions as guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. On that basis, the hon. Gentleman need have no further worries about repealing section 28.
  Mr. Brazier: I know that you will restrain me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I go far down the road of debate on another Bill, but as the Minister has tempted me, let me make one point in response. As she will know, I was present for a substantial chunk of the debate on that Bill, during which the efforts of a number of Opposition Members to include a specific commendation of marriage were voted down. Given the overwhelming evidence that monogamy, abstinence and marriage are the best foundations for the rearing of children—that was the context of the debate, but the same applies in a number of other contexts—I am not entirely convinced by what

  357
  she has said. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but as they know very well, the rules of order do not allow us to proceed much further with a debate on another Bill. I merely say that many people would have liked their children to be told, during debates on sex education, that marriage should have a special place when it comes to sex and the rearing of children.
  My second point is that a practical issue is involved—an issue that some speakers have been unwilling to face. I refer to the balance between the framework in which teaching is given, and the need for tolerance. One issue has featured a great deal in the media over the past fortnight. It has been dealt with rather flippantly, but I am the first to say that it is a serious issue. Obesity is a significant cause of bullying in schools. The bullying of fat children is probably the most common form of bullying in schools. It is repulsive, as is every other form of bullying. Some excessively thin or anorexic children are also bullied and are subject to unpleasant jibes and names such as "beanpole".
  Would any hon. Member seriously suggest, however, that overweight children should not be warned of the medical dangers of being overweight? If their condition results from a medical condition, should not they be pointed towards doctors? [Interruption.] I heard some lengthy speeches from hon. Members opposed to the new clause and did not intervene, and I hope that they in turn will hear me out.
  Is it seriously suggested that pupils should not be warned of the dangers of obesity? However, given the attitude developing among some health professionals, I wonder whether teachers would not be actively discouraged from telling pupils about the considerable medical dangers posed by homosexual practices.
  Labour Members who oppose the new clause talk about intolerance. Would they tolerate teachers sharing with pupils information about the medical dangers involved in homosexuality?
  Dr. Harris: Many questions arise from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but will he clarify what he considers the serious medical dangers of lesbianism to be?
  Mr. Brazier: I am not an expert on the medical dangers of lesbianism, but the medical dangers of sex between men are a subject on which the hon. Gentleman has heard me speak before. As a doctor, he must know many of them. For instance, more than half the cases of HIV in this country involve the relatively small proportion of people who are practising homosexuals. The dangers also include a range of bowel disorders, and blood disorders. Some of the damage caused by male homosexual practices can be caused by protected sex as well as by unprotected sex. However, I do not want to go further down that road.
  As I said earlier, in a physical context a contrast must be drawn between tolerance and teaching children the full facts. However, a wider moral argument underlies the debate. It is worth sharing with the House some of the comments made by major religious leaders in this country. The Chief Rabbi, Dr. Jonathan Sacks, has stated:
  I can never forget as a Jew that homosexuals were sent to Auschwitz just as Jews were. Therefore if our society has become more tolerant that is a good thing. However, the current proposal is based on a fundamental confusion between tolerance and moral
  358
  judgment. There is a real danger that the abolition of section 28 will lead to the promotion of a homosexual lifestyle as morally equivalent to marriage.
  The general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain stated:
  Our objection is that a small and unrepresentative pressure group appears to have seized control of the government and is attempting to change the law in order to thrust on our children—and on the children of the rest of society—lifestyles and values which most people reject.
  The Anglican Bishop of Liverpool, the Rev. James Jones, said that section 28
  seeks to prevent the promotion of a gay lifestyle as a moral equivalent to heterosexual marriage. It recognises that education is a formative experience and has a unique role in the development of not just individual pupils but of society as a whole.
  Ann Keen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brazier: I am not giving way again.
  Ann Keen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Brazier: I did not seek to intervene on the hon. Lady when she was speaking. I have given way four times already, and I am drawing my remarks to a close.
  Ann Keen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to give way.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Brazier: The quote from the bishop continues:
  Governments, both Conservative and New Labour, put the family at the heart of a stable society. Section 28 is the logical out-working of that policy in the education system.
  I will not quote Cardinal Winning, as it is widely known that I am a Catholic and people would say that obviously I would agree with him. However, there we have the testimony of three very important religious leaders.
  It seems to me, to quote the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has left the Chamber, that to call the video that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden described at some length merely unhelpful is the understatement of the year. It is quite wrong that such material should be produced and it is quite right that it is illegal for education authorities to produce it. I support the retention of section 28.
  Mr. Borrow: I have two brief points to make before my main argument. I was somewhat bemused by the comments of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and his concern for the health of gay men, in view of the situation in Glasgow, where section 28 has resulted in health work with gay men not being undertaken. I wish that some of the opponents of the repeal of section 28 would decide whether they are concerned about the health of gay men or whether they are as hostile to gay men as many of their attitudes and comments would indicate.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman gave a list of religious leaders. I wish to pay tribute to Alan Chesters, the Bishop of Blackburn. He has done tremendous work in the other

  359
  place in working with the Government to introduce guidelines on this issue. To indicate that the Anglican bishops in the other place unanimously wish to retain section 28 is quite untrue. Many Anglican bishops support the Government on this issue and I am pleased at the line being taken by my own bishop.
  When clause 28 was being debated in the late 1980s, I was a newly elected member of Preston borough council. I remember a debate on the clause to which I contributed. A number of points were made as we looked forward to what would happen when the clause was implemented. First, the measure mentioned the promotion of sexuality several times. The presumption was that it was possible to turn someone who was heterosexual into someone who was attracted to, and wanted relationships with, someone of the same sex. I have yet to meet anybody who knew of such a case or had come across an example.
  There seems to be a myth about the promotion of homosexuality. One of the dividing lines on the issue is between those who believe that section 28 will create more gay men and women through the promotion of homosexuality and those who look at the reality and accept that people's sexuality is something that they discover as they grow up and over which they have no control. They do have control over how they develop relationships, having discovered their sexuality, but that is a different issue.
  The second part of the measure that I remember debating all those years ago said that a local authority shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
  This afternoon, we have heard that section 28 no longer applies to schools. However, I remember comments made by a retired school teacher when it did apply to schools. She had spent all her working life teaching in high schools. She bitterly opposed the introduction of section 28 because she felt that it would inhibit teachers when they counselled and worked with pupils. When pupils express doubt about their sexuality to a teacher, the last thing they need is legislation that prevents a teacher from saying that to be gay is okay, and that people who grow up and find that they are gay and enter a same-sex relationship are perfectly good and decent. Over the years, teachers have felt inhibited about making such comments.
  Moreover, there have been problems because of bullying. The section makes it difficult to tackle bullying. It is not just a matter of telling people to stop bullying; they need to be told why it is wrong to bully and that the person who is being bullied is just as good as they are. When legislation states that gay relationships are unacceptable, how can a teacher stop a class of children bullying one of their number? The teacher cannot tell them that it is perfectly all right for people to be gay. That was one of the key issues when the section was introduced.
  I accept that the point no longer applies to the education system, because sex education and the problem of bullying are no longer covered by section 28. Proposals in the Learning and Skills Bill remove such matters from measures controlling local government. I am thus puzzled as to why the Opposition want to reintroduce such a provision on education when it has no place in education.
  360
  Part of section 28 will remain if the Tories get their way. It relates to whether a local authority can undertake measures that promote homosexuality. There have been no legal judgments on cases arising from section 28. I suspect that one of the reasons why no such case has completed its passage through the courts is the difficulty of deciding whether it is possible to promote homosexuality at all. Although there are still some people who believe that is possible, most rational people do not.
  Local authorities—including Corby, Glasgow and Cardiff—are using section 28 to justify not giving support and funding to organisations in their area that assist gay and lesbian people, or are used by them. The point is simple. When I was a local authority leader, I approved grants to voluntary organisations that helped groups with a particular religious, local or other interest. Section 28 is being used to deny grants and support to community-based organisations serving the needs of gays and lesbians.
  There are gay men and women in every constituency. Surely their local authorities should have the power—unfettered by section 28—to give services, either directly or through other organisations, to members of the gay community in their constituencies. However, under section 28 and given the ambiguity of the word "promotion", they are prevented from doing that.
  Over the past 12 years, most local authorities have ignored section 28 when it has come to supporting gay and lesbian groups in their areas. However, because of the work of the Christian Institute and other organisations, local authorities are backing away from giving services and support to gay and lesbian people. That goes against everything that the House should stand for. It promotes division, homophobia and exclusion. If there is one thing that we in this place should be about it is promoting tolerance, equality and inclusion. I urge hon. Members to oppose the new clause and the amendments.
  Mr. Peter Luff: This has been a surprisingly good debate, given the passions that the subject often arouses. I want to join virtually every Conservative Member who has spoken in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) for a very brave and convincing speech, which I for one admired.
  Although I did not agree with the conclusions of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), I was grateful for what she said about everyone in the Chamber—I count myself among them—being united in the desire to build a fair and tolerant society in which minority rights are respected and protected unless there are overwhelming reasons to the contrary. However, we must recognise that it is our duty to reflect the views held by people outside the House. In that regard, it is right to recognise something that has not yet been articulated in the debate: that many people whom we represent are not of the view that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality. Even though they hold that view, they abhor discrimination against homosexuals.
  That point was developed helpfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) when he quoted religious leaders. When he quoted a Muslim leader, I was alarmed to hear a rather derogatory remark from someone on the Liberal Benches about the tolerance of that religion. That is worrying. We should keep clear and open

  361
  minds about the views of all the religions in this country. We should listen to the divided Anglican Church—yes, it is divided—and to the other Churches that have a coherent and clear view.
  The only jarring note struck in the debate was the earlier suggestion that those Conservative and Labour Members who support the retention of section 28 are in some sense homophobic or party to the incitement of acts of terrorism against the homosexual community. I fundamentally and completely reject that view.
  As the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale made clear, this is, in one sense, a narrow debate. It is about the use of taxpayers' money to promote a particular ideology or point of view. It is not about the rights or wrongs of homosexuality, but about what the state does with its resources.
  Last week, I received in my postbag a letter from a doctor in my constituency who has written to the Prime Minister to express her opposition to the scrapping of section 28, and I shall be interested to see the reply that the Prime Minister sends. The letter certainly reflects the overwhelming support in my constituency for the retention of section 28. At no stage in the eight years that I have been a Member of Parliament has a head teacher expressed concern about its operation in relation to his or her school's anti-bullying policy. The Government are slaying a dragon of their own imagination to appeal to a small cosmopolitan elite; the problem does not exist. I totally reject the arguments that have been made about bullying.
  The doctor in my constituency has worked with sex offenders in prisons and helped to initiate a group in Worcester to support the child victims of sexual abuse. She says:
  I do have a little knowledge of the subject.
  She describes herself as
  a lifelong supporter of the Labour party…a parent, a doctor and a Christian.
  The letter helpfully refers to the point that we are debating.
  It is unfortunate that the literature that causes such concern and that has been quoted by Conservative Members often goes into unnecessarily graphic detail. The letter says:
  I have seen a variety of leaflets and promotional literature originating from gay rights groups, some of which are in receipt of grants from their local authorities, which have already been issued to schools despite the existence of Section 28 as it stands at present. This material not only encourages children very frankly to experiment with a homosexual lifestyle to "determine their sexual orientation" at a time when they are very vulnerable and impressionable.
  That is the important point. Children are, at a certain stage in the development of their sexuality, vulnerable and impressionable.
  Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
  Mr. Borrow rose—
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Luff: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow).
  Mr. Heald: Many of the representations that I have received in favour of retaining section 28 have been from
  362
  mothers with sons, who feel worried about the change. Does my hon. Friend agree with my impression that the mothers of Britain are saying no to the proposed change?
  Ms Debra Shipley: Rubbish.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Rubbish.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Ladies should not get so excited.
  Mr. Luff: I hear the cries of "rubbish", which you rightly rebuked, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from two people on the Government Benches whom I know to be mothers. All I can say is that they are in a minority of mothers and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is right.
  Before I give way to the hon. Member for South Ribble, I shall develop the point on which I think he wanted to intervene. I was quoting the doctor who said that young people can be vulnerable and impressionable. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that it is irrational to say that one can promote homosexuality. I disagree with him; it is possible to promote anything, including homosexuality.
  Mr. Borrow: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not quoting his own words, but what does he understand by the term "homosexual lifestyle" in the letter that he has read out?
  Mr. Luff: I do not want to be drawn into detail—this debate has been mercifully free of details—but I would have thought that the phrase is self-explanatory. I do not understand how I can expand the point. It is a life style lived by homosexuals, with the practices of homosexuals. It seems self-explanatory. I am at a loss to understand what further explanation I can give. The subject matter is well known on both sides of the House.
  Dr. Harris: Is the hon. Gentleman at all troubled by the fact that no respected group of medical opinion accepts the view that a sexuality can be promoted, just as femaleness cannot be promoted? Is he at all put off his stride by the fact that organisations such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the National Children's Bureau and the Royal College of Nursing are all campaigning for the abolition of section 28 because of the damage that it does to the welfare of children?
  Mr. Luff: The representative bodies may take that view, but I know many medics in my constituency, including the doctor whom I am quoting, who profoundly disagree. It is common for representative bodies to be out of step with ordinary members. If anything, the hon. Gentleman's point encourages me in my viewpoint.
  The third question that we must ask is: what are the risks of repealing section 28? I and many hon. Members take a view about the importance of promoting conventional family life, and believe that promoting homosexuality risks undermining it. As I have explained, we believe that young children can be impressionable and open to pressures at the wrong time in their lives.
  I happen to believe that there is too much pressure on young people, whatever their sexuality, to engage in early sexual experimentation—homosexual or heterosexual.

  363
  Indeed, in the previous Parliament, I led a discussion from the Government Benches on a Bill to control the outrageous nature of teenage magazines for girls. I received great support on both sides of the House, for which I was grateful. We should be reluctant to promote anything that encourages excessive sexual experimentation.
  My constituent, the doctor, says:
  Repeal would open the door, not just to the very proper factual and unbiased teaching about homosexuality which should form part of a sex education programme, but to this very overt encouragement—
  that is, encouragement to experiment.
  More importantly still, has the likelihood of this access to children being used by covert paedophiles been fully thought through? I ask this as someone who has spent time working in prison with sex offenders. Surely we would all wish to protect our children from this kind of risk?
  I doubt very much whether adequate procedures to prevent such exploitation could ever be guaranteed.
  Ann Keen: Will the hon. Gentleman please clarify whether he is suggesting that sex offenders come under the category of homosexuals? That is certainly the impression that he is giving, and I am sure that he would not wish to do so.
  Mr. Luff: No, of course I would not wish to give that impression. I am citing a consequence feared by a doctor who has worked in prisons with sex offenders. However, I am grateful for the hon. Lady's clarification.
  Finally, my constituent raises a fundamental objection that goes to the heart of section 28 and the debate. She says:
  We should be very wary of using public funds to promote any kind of ideology, whatever its origin, but especially one where the targeted group is so young and vulnerable.
  That is the heart of the argument. All forms of discrimination are abhorrent. We do not have to promote Islam or Judaism to urge tolerance and understanding of Muslims and Jews. We do not have to promote homosexuality to fight prejudice, intolerance and bullying. All bullying in schools is abhorrent, whether on the grounds of race, obesity—as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury said—wearing glasses, having red hair, being too clever or sexual orientation. Keeping section 28 would not be a bully's charter: it is misleading to argue that it would. The House should vote for the continuation of the section with absolute confidence.
  Mr. Patrick Hall: The argument for section 28 and its retention, which the previous Government made in 1988, rests on the contention that homosexuality was being promoted deliberately among young children in schools. Of course, if that were true, I would agree that section 28 had a purpose. That contention has only one flaw: there was no evidence then that homosexuality was being promoted in schools, and there is no evidence now.
  Let me deal briefly with a matter that has been raised mostly by Conservative Members today, but which has been raised by others in previous debates in this House and in the other place. It is claimed that an illegal and irresponsible way has been found to get pro-homosexual materials into schools in order to corrupt impressionable young children. Many who wish to retain section 28
  364
  have claimed, usually in the media, that if it were removed, a floodgate would be opened and such promotional material would re-emerge.
  I believe that that material has never been promoted in schools. The whole thing was brought about by the Conservative Government setting up a false target to generate populist acclaim. They wanted to create an enemy, shoot it down and claim that they were doing a good job. That technique is well known and well tried in politics, and does a great deal of harm because it hurts people.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Did the hon. Gentleman visit the exhibition laid on by Lady Young in a Committee Room earlier this year? I assure him that that material exists and, if it exists in such quantities, I presume that there is an intention to use it.
  Mr. Hall: I did not visit the exhibition. However, what I am about to say may deal with some of the matters that may have been in the exhibition.
  From the work that I have done, it appears that two kinds of material have been referred to in debates here and in the media in the last few months. One is a group of videos prepared by the Terrence Higgins Trust to promote safe sex among gay men. I have not viewed any of that material, but I understand that it is sexually explicit and is specifically designed for adults. It is not used in schools and, given the considerably reduced incidence in the spread of HIV and AIDS compared with forecasts a decade or so ago, it is probable that such materials have been successful.
  The other group of material that has been alluded to includes, as we heard today, the teachers' pack and video "Beyond a Phase", prepared by the Avon health authority. The video is subtitled "Talking about Gay and Lesbian Relationships" and the accompanying document is subtitled "A Practical Guide to Challenging Homophobia in Schools". That material has been prepared for teachers; it is not for promotion among children. I have a copy of the document and, like the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), I have watched the video. She and I have totally different interpretations of that video, and I think that it is necessary to state on the record that there is a different view of it.
  In my opinion, that 14-minute film is humane, thought provoking and socially responsible. Of course, as the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said, it could have been done better, but it has been misrepresented. It presents young people, whom I believe to be between the ages of 13 and 16, talking honestly and openly about discovering their sexuality. Many of them say that they have discovered their homosexuality. They talk about the pain, confusion, unhappiness and loneliness of realising that their sexuality places them in a small minority imprisoned by social prejudice. They talk about the bullying, harassment and abuse that they have received from some people. They explain how all that interferes with their studies and their ability to form friendships and relationships. Those children are speaking for themselves, and they offer insights into the fear and ignorance that presents them as unnatural and dehumanised.
  At the very end of the film, one young person comments that he had thought about experimenting with boys and girls to discover his real feelings. That comment has been

  365
  mentioned several times today; it has been mentioned in another place and in the press. It has deliberately been inaccurately reported as characterising the purpose of the whole film as advocating experimentation for all. Having seen the video, I know that that is a mischievous travesty of the truth.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will refer to the Government guidance for schools on sex and relationship education, which has already been referred to. Having seen the principles that the Department for Education and Employment set out some months ago, I believe that the approach that has been adopted is mature, balanced and caring. There is an urgent need for open information on these matters and for clearer, better sex education in this country.
  We have not performed well in that respect, as is suggested by the fact that Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the European Union and the evidence that children are becoming sexually active too young. Evidence from countries where there is more effective sex education shows that there has been an accompanying reduction in early sexual activity and that there are far fewer teenage pregnancies.
  Mr. David Prior: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hall: No, I do not have time.
  Section 28, or section 2A as it is now called, gets in the way of the serious, necessary task of educating, bringing up and guiding all our children. It is born of prejudice; it seeks to perpetuate prejudice, and it has no place in a decent society.
  Ms Armstrong: This has been an interesting debate. It is always difficult to have a reasoned and measured debate on this issue in the House. Among those participating in the debate, only the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and myself were present in the House in 1988 when clause 28 was added to a local government Bill. Because it was added to such a Bill, it seems perfectly logical to repeal it in another local government Bill. In my reading of those early debates and my memory of the feeling in the House at the time there was a lot of bigotry and prejudice driving the decision to include clause 28 in that Bill. That meant that, whatever the detail of the clause and the Bill, people thought at the time that the measure was homophobic, and that has had an effect.
  5.45 m
  We have heard about bullying from hon. Members on both sides of the argument. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) asked whether we think that section 28 should be repealed because it is not important, or because it has had such a strong effect. In a sense, the answer is both. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made it clear that section 28 should not have had an effect on the way in which teachers deal with bullying that is driven by homophobia. It should have had no effect on how children are treated in schools, but, for too many, it has had a very damaging effect on them as individuals.
  Section 28 has bred the feeling that it is all right to have a go at homosexuals. None of us in the House has condoned that view today. Deciding whether that happens is inevitably a matter of judgment, but the evidence that
  366
  has been quoted by my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) and by the hon. Member for Bath should at least be sufficient to make us all think about the actual effect of section 28, whatever its intention or whatever we read into its wording. If it has affected some people in a way that we say is intolerable, we must ask whether it is good legislation and whether it should exist.
  The Government have made it absolutely clear that we do not think that section 28 is good legislation and that we are committed to the repeal of section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, as it is properly called. We believe that the official Opposition are attempting to reinstate a flawed and offensive provision. Those in favour of its retention have argued that children are at risk, and I suspect that that argument has been used in most of the letters that hon. Members have received in support of its retention. Indeed, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) has used that argument. However, the framework that the Government have put in place makes it absolutely clear to everyone, especially to those of us in the House, that the provision can have no effect on children in schools.
  The arguments about how the previous Government dealt with such matters have been made, while ignoring the real changes that have taken place in the relationship between schools and local education authorities since the original legislation was passed. Given the safeguards that we are introducing under the Learning and Skills Bill and through our guidance on sex and relationship education, that argument is dishonest. It is clear that children in schools will be protected by the framework that we shall put in place under the Learning and Skills Bill.
  Children are be protected from anything that local authorities or health authorities might seek to do in schools because we have placed the responsibility firmly on teachers and school governors. We have made it clear that LEAs have no power to determine sex education in schools. The Learning and Skills Bill states that bullying is unacceptable in any form—whether it is racial, the result of a pupil's appearance or related to sexual orientation.
  Concern was expressed that by removing the measure we are saying that the promotion of homosexuality is all right. Local authorities are governed by Acts of Parliament, which make clear what they are able and not able to do, and the promotion of homosexuality is not within their scope anyway so that argument also falls. Some people say, "Local authorities and schools should not highlight any form of sexuality." I understand where they are coming from, but the problem is that homosexuality is a form of sexuality that has attracted bigotry and prejudice and highlighting it through section 28 has legitimised bigotry and prejudice in a way that no one in the House would tolerate. Therefore, the Government are determined to press ahead.
  We do not want the House to promote bigotry and intolerance. We want to support everyone, recognising and celebrating difference and diversity while making sure that none of us has any truck with intolerance and bigotry. I hope that the House will vote in such way tonight.
  Mr. Waterson: I do not want to revisit the arguments—I agree with my hon. Friends; this has been

  367
  a good debate, marred only by the early intervention of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw)—nor do I want to review all the speeches, although in their way they were classics on the subject, whichever side of the argument they supported. One cannot help but feel that the debate will not get an inch of coverage anywhere in the outside world, although it deserves coverage as the arguments have been put in an exemplary fashion. With no disrespect to other hon. Members who participated, I must single out the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith), who made a speech of great courage and conviction, in equal measure. She deserves to be congratulated on that.
  We still strongly believe that the Government are wrong: they have embarked on a course that could end in disaster in terms of lack of public support and that sends entirely the wrong message to schools and local authorities. We say that much more in sorrow than in anger, but in the hope and conviction that their lordships—who, as I said earlier, are often much more in tune with the popular mood than are the Government—will reinstate section 28 and, indeed, the amendment that forms part of the new clause.
  I am conscious that the House would like a clear-cut vote on the central issue—section 28, or section 2A as it has been called. Although I shall press amendment No. 7 to a vote, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 74, line 2, leave out clause 98.—[Mr. Waterson.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 305

  Division No. 253]

  [5.54 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Amess, David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, Nigel

  Benton, Joe

  Fallon, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Flight, Howard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Breed, Colin

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gray, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Damian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, John

  Burnett, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Burns, Simon

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hammond, Philip

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayes, John

  Clappison, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Collins, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran James

  Hunter, Andrew

  368

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Ruffley, David

  Key, Robert

  St Aubyn, Nick

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Letwin, Oliver

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Loughton, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Luff, Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Syms, Robert

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Thompson, William

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Madel, Sir David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Maples, John

  Walter, Robert

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Wells, Bowen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Norman, Archie

  Willetts, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Prior, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Randall, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Robertson, Laurence

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Allan, Richard

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Allen, Graham

  Browne, Desmond

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Burden, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Burgon, Colin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Burstow, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Austin, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Baker, Norman

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Ballard, Jackie

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Battle, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Caton, Martin

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Chaytor, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Chidgey, David

  Berry, Roger

  Clapham, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blackman, Liz

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Borrow, David

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Cooper, Yvette

  Brake, Tom

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  369

  Cotter, Brian

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Crausby, David

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Darvill, Keith

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davidson, Ian

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keetch, Paul

  Denham, John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kemp, Fraser

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Doran, Frank

  Drew, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kidney, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lammy, David

  Efford, Clive

  Laxton, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lepper, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Levitt, Tom

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Flynn, Paul

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McCabe, Steve

  Fyfe, Maria

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Galloway, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gidley, Sandra

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McNulty, Tony

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Goggins, Paul

  McWalter, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McWilliam, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Grocott, Bruce

  Martlew, Eric

  Gunnell, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hanson, David

  Miller, Andrew

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Harvey, Nick

  Moore, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hepburn, Stephen

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

  Heppell, John

  Hill, Keith

  Mountford, Kali

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Norris, Dan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Oaten, Mark

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hutton, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  370

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stunell, Andrew

  Pike, Peter L

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pound, Stephen

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Purchase, Ken

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Tipping, Paddy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Todd, Mark

  Rapson, Syd

  Touhig, Don

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Trickett, Jon

  Rendel, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tyler, Paul

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sawford, Phil

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheerman, Barry

  Watts, David

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Webb, Steve

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  White, Brian

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Willis, Phil

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

  Wills, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Winnick, David

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Spellar, John

  Wood, Mike

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Woodward, Shaun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Woolas, Phil

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stevenson, George

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived

Clause 100

  WALES
  Amendment made: No. 192, in page 74, line 40, at end insert—
  '(3) Any reference in Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 to an Act which is amended by this Act is to be treated as referring to that Act as amended by this Act.
  (4) Subsection (3) does not affect the power to make further Orders varying or omitting that reference.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 4

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 203, in page 87, line 33, at end insert—
  '. In section 86 of that Act (declaration by local authority of vacancy in office in certain cases), in subsection (1)(b) after "1998" there is inserted "or section 76 of the Local Government Act 2000".

  371
  . In section 87(1) of that Act (date of casual vacancies)—
  (a) after paragraph (e) there is inserted—
  "(ee) in the case of a disqualification under section 76 of the Local Government Act 2000, on the expiration of the ordinary period allowed for making an appeal or application with respect to the relevant decision under that section or, if an appeal or application is made, on the date on which that appeal or application is finally disposed of or abandoned or fails by reason of non-prosecution thereof;",
  (b) in paragraph (f), for "(e)" there is substituted "(ee)".
  No. 204, in page 89, line 25, at end insert—
  '( ) After that subsection there is inserted—
  "(8A) Any reference in this section to the duties of a monitoring officer imposed by this section, or to the duties of a monitoring officer under this section, shall include a reference to the functions which are conferred on a monitoring officer by virtue of Part III of the Local Government Act 2000."'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 5

  REPEALS
  Amendment made: No. 205, in page 90, line 31, column 3, at end insert—
  'In section 100D(2), "of the list, or".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 102

  COMMENCEMENT
  Amendment made: No. 211, in page 75, line 40, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
  '( ) The Secretary of State may by order provide—
  ( ) for paragraphs 17 and 18 of Schedule 3 to come into force before the time appointed by subsection (4),
  ( )for paragraph 26 of Schedule 4 to come into force before the time appointed by that subsection,
  ( )for any of the provisions of Part III of this Act so far as they relate to police authorities in Wales to come into force before the time appointed by that subsection, or
  ( )for any of the other provisions mentioned in that subsection to come into force in relation to England before the time appointed by that subsection.
  The National Assembly for Wales may by order provide—
  ( ) for paragraph 26 of Schedule 4 to come into force before the time appointed by subsection (4), or
  ( ) for any of the other provisions mentioned in that subsection to come into force in relation to Wales before the time appointed by that subsection.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 103

  SHORT TITLE AND EXTENT
  Amendments made: No. 193, in page 76, line 9, leave out "This section and".
  No. 194, in page 76, line 10, at beginning insert "This section".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  6.7 pm
  Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  372
  I am delighted that we can move to Third Reading. We had a good day's debate yesterday. My preference would be that we had spent as long on other parts of the Bill as we have just spent on section 28, but we knew that the House wanted to debate that at some length.
  The Bill has passed through extensive debate in Committee as well as on Report yesterday and today, following its Second Reading in the House before Easter. I am grateful to the hon. Members who have participated in all stages of consideration of the Bill for their constructive contributions and enduring interest in such an important subject.
  Those who have had an opportunity to read the report of the Committee stage will have noticed the great conversion of the official Opposition to local government. They are no longer threatening to get rid of it entirely; they want to embrace local government. We heard positive statements in Committee, which were endorsed by the Leader of the official Opposition last week. Last night, however, the right hon. Gentleman had a go at local education authorities—the education function being an important part of local government—so I am a little confused.
  The Bill and the Local Government Act 1999 are designed to improve local communities and the lives of local people in England and Wales.
  All our debates and discussions on the Bill have shown that we can now say, in a way that we could not during the previous Administration, that the majority of hon. Members believe that local government has an important part to play in a modern society. Whatever our differences on how that should be achieved, most of us have that goal in common. That has been reflected in the spirit of co-operation and partnership in which most of our discussions have been conducted. I hope that that approach will be reflected further in the way that the legislation is implemented locally. That is the intention of the Bill, which rests on local partnership, local accountability and opportunities for local people to have a better say in how their councils are run and what they do.
  With the coming together of this Bill and the previous Local Government Act, we begin to see an opportunity for local government to be much more accountable, to be able to develop much better services and service delivery, and to involve local people in discussion on how to do that most effectively, in the knowledge of who is taking decisions and how those people can be held to account. Local government now has a framework which will allow it to be re-established, not simply as something that politicians think is important, but so that local people know that it changes and considerably enhances their opportunities and quality of life.
  The Bill's passage through the House has provoked lively debate around the key issues, which we discussed again yesterday. Hon. Members have taken the opportunity to refine, clarify and generally improve some of the main provisions. The Government have listened to the points raised, and we have now made more far-reaching changes to strengthen and clarify the Bill, as we promised in Committee. I am happy to report that we now have a strong, robust and rigorous Bill.
  Effective local government is a vital part of the fabric of the dynamic, democratic, fair and inclusive society that people want to see.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I apologise for being absent earlier, but I was on Northern

  373
  Ireland business, as they say. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in relation to the dismantling of the infamous section 28, the Bill is entirely compatible with the legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament some three or four weeks ago?
  Ms Armstrong: I can confirm that the Bill repeals section 28. That is no longer part of Britain's legislative framework. In that sense, the Bill is compatible with legislation passed in Scotland. The Bill requires further confirmation in the Lords, but I am determined that we will see a dynamic, democratic, fair and inclusive society, with local government at its heart. That is vital to securing the quality of life that people deserve and have a right to expect. The Bill, as amended, will put local government back at the heart of local communities, giving to local authorities and the local people whom they serve the rights and responsibilities that fit this age, this century.
  As I have said, linking all those features gives local government a strength to which, in some areas, it has not yet woken up. The power to respond to the economic, environmental and social needs of a local authority's area, linked to the duty to prepare community plans, will radically change the way in which local government works, and ensure that local people feel that local government is working with them on their behalf in a way that has not been possible in recent years.
  I thank hon. Members for their contributions and commend the Bill to the House.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Waterson: I was about to say that this is the last time that we shall debate the Bill in this House, but on reflection, I would not bank on it. I echo the Minister in expressing my gratitude to all members of the Committee, who approached the matter constructively and worked hard, even if, in the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), it was a paltry 40 hours of our lives. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), who worked hard with me and my incredibly heavyweight Back Benchers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir P. Beresford), both of whom brought enormous experience to the Committee's deliberations.
  I recognise all our old friends in the Minister's speech. With the exception of holistic, they were all there—modernisation, partnership, accountability, inclusive, dynamic. That is the new Labour-speak which we have all learned to get used to in Committee.
  The Minister talked about lively debate, but I suspect that that was unconscious humour. No matter how lively the debate was in Committee, it was as nothing compared with the lively debate on the Government Back Benches and in Labour local government.
  The Minister said that the Government had listened. Let us be charitable and assume that she has indeed listened to all representations, not just those from the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats—on a good day—the Labour campaign for open local government, and so on. She may well have listened, but she has hardly taken a blind bit of notice of anything that any of us have said to her. There have been a few minor concessions, for which we are duly grateful, but nothing of any great substance, at least in this House.
  374
  When the Minister talked about a strong, robust and rigorous Bill, I assumed that she was talking about some other Bill. I am almost embarrassed at the Heath Robinson nature of the Bill that we are sending to their Lordships. I hope that they can make some sense of it.
  I thought that the Minister was being slightly optimistic, although I know that it is in her nature, when she talked about confirmation by their Lordships. That may be pitching it a bit high, but I shall return to that.
  I should have thought that some Labour Members might be a little disturbed by the Minister's suggestion that the Bill puts local government back at the heart of local communities. Any number of Labour Members have served on their local councils with distinction, some, with distinction or otherwise, as leaders of their local councils, all of whom would probably resent the characterisation that, up until now, when this brilliant modernisation agenda burst upon an unsuspecting world, they were not at the heart of their local community. That is a gross calumny on local councillors throughout Britain, of all political parties and of none, who have for many years worked for their local communities, often with minimal reward—certainly not reward of the dimensions of that accorded to some Labour leaders around the country under the modernisation agenda.
  Even if the Minister is not listening to me, I have genuine sympathy with her. This has been a difficult few weeks for the Government, not least for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The so-called modernisation policy is coming apart in the Minister's hands. Labour Back Benchers are queueing up to rubbish the Bill, and it has fewer and fewer supporters in local government.
  The Government have had a bad few weeks. The only ray of sunshine is provided by the fact that Ken Follett, unlike Bernie Ecclestone, is not asking for his money back—as far as I know. Labour Back Benchers have attacked the Government; for example, the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) spoke of self-inflicted wounds and uncertainty and confusion about section 28. His lack of faith in the Government's direction is surprising, because I understand that he has been appointed to Labour's parliamentary campaign team. He obviously brings to his new role a healthy scepticism about the entire project. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) likened the Government to a mediaeval monarchy. A range of luvvies, Government supporters and millionaires are queueing up to complain about the course of events.
  The Government suffered massive losses in local government in May—hardly a ringing endorsement of their policies in local government or centrally.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am usually able to give Front-Bench spokesmen a little leeway, but we must talk about the content of the Bill. We are considering Third Reading.
  Mr. Waterson: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important to note that when issues arising from the Bill were discussed last week in Bournemouth at the Local Government Association conference, my right hon. Friend

  375
  the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and I had good receptions, but the Minister received the Women's Institute treatment and was slow hand-clapped.
  Ms Armstrong: I had a good reception.
  Mr. Waterson: I can only suppose that it was good compared with her reception by the Labour group at the Local Government Association conference.
  The Bill remains an embarrassing shambles. The Minister referred to the wonderful new power that local authorities are to receive. We broadly welcome that, and our approach to it in Committee was constructive, as I am sure that the Minister will concede. However, the fundamental problem remains: there is no cash to go with it. The Government, who have already cut funding for many councils, are providing no extra money.
  Ms Armstrong: I do not want to interrupt, but the hon. Gentleman should not mislead the House. Does he accept that the previous Government cut local government funding in real terms by 4.3 per cent. in the three years before the general election, whereas in the three years after that election we increased local government funding in real terms by 6.8 per cent.? I should not like the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House.
  Mr. Waterson: No, I would not wish to do that. However, perhaps the Minister will explain why my constituents are paying 8 per cent. more council tax this year than last year. We can all bandy figures about, but people, especially in rural areas and shire counties, are feeling the pinch under the Government.
  I allowed the Minister to intervene because I believed that she would deal with my point about the new power. Despite her protestations in Committee, there is no new money to back it up. Not only will the Government refuse to grant more money to accompany the power, but they have made it crystal clear in the House of Commons and the House of Lords that councils that try to raise extra cash to support the new power will fall foul of the capping regime. We still have such a regime.
  We broadly welcome changes to the system of standards and conduct. The Committee, to a man and woman, welcomed the abolition of surcharging, which everyone in local government views as a blunt instrument. Although we made detailed points about the actual provisions, we welcome the changes that the Bill outlines.
  Let us consider the provisions that apply to elections. The Government have a bizarre notion that the solution to historically declining turnouts in local elections is to make people vote more often—that an annual opportunity to vote for every council will somehow make electors more enthusiastic about voting. At the same time, the Government are tinkering again with the voting system for directly elected mayors and proposing the same system as was used in the London mayoral elections. Despite the bally-hoo, the turnout for that election was only 33 per cent.—compared to an average 30 per cent. in local government elections—and there was a greater proportion of spoilt ballot papers than usual.
  Structures, and the Government's insistence on imposing their blueprint on local government throughout the country, constituted the biggest issue on which we
  376
  spent the most time. I repeat that discussing even three options is pretty rich, because for the majority of councils, the only realistic option is a cabinet system with an executive/scrutiny split to replace the current committee system. The Government have the incredible notion that, by tinkering with local government systems and structures which are, on the whole, of little interest to the residents of any council area, they will somehow increase public confidence in local government, improve turnouts and, to employ a phrase that the Minister used often, improve quality of life. That simply will not happen. The only way to achieve that is by returning more powers to local government and thus ensuring that those elected make genuine choices for their community. That will make people keener to go out and vote.
  The Minister did not mention her so-called fourth option. That is just as well. I believe that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders)—it may have been someone else—dubbed it "option 3A". That is probably overstating the case. The so-called fourth option that the Government have devised is nothing of the sort. It simply requires councils to make proposals for an executive; the Secretary of State will decide whether they can proceed. The option will apply to a group of councils, not individual councills. Surely Ministers realise that there is no great enthusiasm in local government for the structures that the Government want to impose, but enormous support for the current committee system or some variation on, or updated version of, it. I do not understand why Ministers are burying their heads in the sand.
  We had a good, substantial debate about secrecy yesterday. I simply reiterate our position, which has never changed from start to finish of our proceedings. Under successive Conservative Governments, beginning with a private Member's Bill introduced by Margaret Thatcher, we established a code that ensured the rights of the public and the media to attend and get details of council and committee meetings. It would be simple for the Government to say that those rules should apply to local government cabinet meetings. Yet pushed this way and that by the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, newspaper editors, the media generally and their rebellious Back Benchers, Ministers have evolved a complex, bureaucratic system for dealing with cabinet meetings. It is unnecessary and confusing, and it will probably be difficult to police. The system is not even complete. Only last Monday, the Government sent out draft regulations for consultation in a panic because of the pressure that was being brought to bear on them.
  We have evidence of the success of the Government's policy on directly elected mayors. It has been a great success in London. The Government ended up with the wrong candidate, and the wrong candidate won the election. Any rational Government would have piloted the idea somewhere, but this Government chose London for the pilot scheme. I do not need to rub in the extent of the failure of that experiment.
  There is a bigger debate still about the future of local government, which is beyond the ambit of the Bill but is still relevant. That is the question of "Front Line First"—how local government is to be funded and whether the Government intend to try to avoid using local government structures wherever possible.
  I hope that it will be helpful to the House—
  Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is on the issue of "Front Line First" and whether local authorities are to

  377
  be bypassed. Given his intervention in my speech earlier this evening, will he clarify whether I was right in ascribing to the leader of the Conservative party that party's intention significantly to remove the current powers of local education authorities?
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman is now putting to me a rather different point. He talked about our abolishing local education authorities, and I am happy to reiterate that we have no intention of doing so. However, we intend to redefine their role. I do not think that any LEA should feel secure in having any future under the Government's plans once they are unveiled.
  I will not be inviting my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading. As I have made clear, there are some sensible provisions in the Bill which we would not like to see lost. The Bill still needs amending in some significant ways, and I shall return to that. To use the words of the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who spoke yesterday, this is a centralising Government when it comes to local government. To use also the words of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), the Government have a contempt for local government.
  To return to the meeting of the Local Government Association in Bournemouth last week, we had the non-appearance of the Deputy Prime Minister, although I understand that he found time to go to the British soaps awards. We had a panel discussion involving the hon. Member for Torbay. [Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and the Regions asks from a sedentary position about the whereabouts of my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman). The answer is that he was at Bournemouth. The right hon. Lady probably did not notice because she was being slow hand-clapped by the audience.
  As I have said, we had a panel discussion, at which I was present on behalf of my party, as the hon. Member for Torbay was for his. No Minister of senior or junior rank was produced by the Government. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions may be short of funds from the Treasury, but it is not short of Ministers. I do not want to embarrass the Minister too much because she experienced the slow hand-clapping of the audience.
  The fact is that the Government have wholly lost the plot on local government matters. They are obsessed with their notions, which have less and less to do with the real world and more and more to do with the liberal elite of which we spoke earlier.
  The Bill will go to the House of Lords. I hope and expect that their Lordships will stand firm on the two crucial issues of section 28 and the so-called fourth option. That is a real option and choice for local government. We can only guess what will happen first. Will there be two substantial U-turns by the Government on the Bill—or the loss of the Bill—or will there be an invitation to London's Mayor to rejoin the Labour party?
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I shall be as quick as possible because I am aware that time is running out. I reiterate that the reforms set out in the Bill are not new ideas. They originated in 1991 in the consultation paper on the internal management of local authorities. However,
  378
  the reforms are revolutionary as regards the way in which local councils will operate in future and take decisions. They will replace the traditional committee system with a cabinet scrutiny split.
  Early experiments have not been a great success. There have been examples of decisions being taken in secret and of small cabals taking decisions. Some local newspapers have been up in arms because they have not been able to get information. We took the Minister's assurance in Committee that that was because the Bill was, obviously, not on the statute book. Those things should not occur when, as is to be hoped, the Bill takes its place on the statute book. Time will tell.
  There has been welcome movement by the Government during the Bill's passage. There has been a relaxation of the narrow, prescribed structures that were set out originally. There has been an important concession on freedom of information. There has been clarification on pensions. There has been protection for councillors serving on outside bodies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I were pleased to serve in Committee and to have contributed constructively, I believe, to the Bill's passage. It is not the Bill that we would have drafted in the first place. The freedoms that local councils need are not necessarily in the Bill, although there is some movement towards that. However, we are pleased about the power of competence in terms of economic, environmental and social well-being. In a sense, we are probably closer to the sort of local government that we would want to see, even if there is not the absolute power of competence and financial freedom that we would wish the Bill to have.
  We await the Government's intentions on finance as well as the comprehensive spending review. Some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) were correct. Many new duties have gone to local government, but whether these moves will be a success will depend on whether local government has the necessary funds. It does not necessarily have the necessary fund-raising powers to make things happen. In conclusion, we will not impede the Bill's progress at this stage.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Patrick Hall: I am pleased to make a short contribution to the debate, both as a Member who considered the Bill in Committee and as a former councillor on Bedfordshire county council. I found the experience of both informative and generally enjoyable. One position lasted eight years and the other 40 hours, as has been mentioned several times. Having gone through all that, I remain a strong supporter of local government. I hold it in high esteem because I believe it to be an essential part of a civilised society and a healthy democracy. That is where I come from with regard to the Bill and the reform of local government.
  Local councils have served the country well for about 120 years. They have changed many times during that period. My approach to the Bill and to local government reform is that we should add to and improve what we already have. I am convinced, having been involved in the passage of the Bill, that we will reform local government in a progressive direction.
  I do not share the reluctance of some to let go of the committee system. When I first served as a councillor some years ago, everything was done through committees

  379
  and the full council. I quickly came to appreciate—as a social services spokesperson, I became part of the system—that the real decisions were often taken outside open and formal meetings. They were taken usually by leaders, sometimes alone with chief officers, and often through private party group meetings. They were whipped through committee, often with very little member participation. I see no need for anyone to feel threatened by the proposed executive scrutiny structure.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred more than once in Committee and on the Floor of the House to arrangements on Bedfordshire country council. Perhaps he did so because he knows that Bedfordshire is a very good place and that I represent part of it. Also, he knows that the council is controlled by the Conservatives with a majority of one. However, it has an all-party executive and a scrutiny committee. That committee is chaired by a senior Labour councillor, and the system seems to work. I understand on good authority that some Conservative back-bench councillors are becoming annoyed about the prominence that the Labour councillor who chairs the scrutiny committee enjoys on the full council. That might be a sign that scrutiny can work. I do not see it as a second-class function to be conducted by second-class councillors. It is an integral part of the process.
  The movement that the Government have made on the openness of meetings and access to information is genuine and welcome. It was rather churlish of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, today and yesterday, to criticise the Government for listening to Members. He spent a good deal of time introducing amendments, and when improvements are accepted, he seems to think them not good enough.
  The changes that have been put together and presented by the Government prove not only that hon. Members have been doing their job on the Bill, but that the Government are doing their job. I have no doubt that we are creating the means for local councils to do their job in all the years ahead.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me and for the way in which the Government have moved in the
  380
  past 24 hours, particularly on openness in local government. They have clarified some issues, not least when the Minister reassured us last night that decisions that are made collectively in a council's executive should be in public, even if the decisions that arise out of them are made by an individual member.
  That is important. My constituents do not mind so much where the decision is made, but they want to see open discussion of the closure of an old people's homes, the new level of rents, or the opening hours of a public library—important things that touch their lives. The Minister has clarified that; it is very welcome and I am grateful.
  I am grateful for and welcome the Minister's remarks on Third Reading, which I took as positive remarks, about local government and local authorities. In my experience, local authorities have not felt over the past 20 years that central Government really believed in them, or were on their side. That has been as true since the last election as it was before it. However, with those remarks by the Minister, let us hope that the Bill is the start of a new relationship between central Government and local authorities—a new, much more positive relationship. I fear, however, that the Government will need to look again at the speed at which they are moving on local government in relation to housing and education. Until those things are clarified, local authorities will not feel that the Government believe that they can deliver and do a good job within the new structure that they are forming by means of the Bill.
  Local authorities are, of course, variable, as are local councillors. Many are far from perfect, but local democracy is essential for the government of this country. People want to know whom they are electing and who is making decisions, and they want those people to be accountable to them. However good services are through agencies, that is not the same as having locally elected people making decisions at a local level. With that underpinning the new Bill, and the Minister's positive remarks about the future of local government, many of us will be happy to see how the Bill works, particularly if it will be the start of a new and more positive relationship between central and local government.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Committee, considered.
Clause 25
  CINEMAS
  Amendment made: No. 1, in page 28, line 1, leave out "(7)" and insert "(6A)".—[Ms Buck.]
Clause 41

  APPEALS UNDER PART V
  Amendments made: No. 2, in page 44, line 26, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1) above".
  No. 3, in page 44, line 31, at end insert—
  '(3) An appeal by either party against the decision of the magistrates' court under this section may be made to the Crown Court.'.
  No. 4, in page 44, line 32, after first "court" insert—
  'or to the Crown Court'.—[Ms Buck.]

Clause 43

  SEIZURE UNDER PART V
  Amendment made: No. 5, in page 45, line 4, after "street" insert—
  'to which this Part of this Act applies'.—[Ms Buck.]

Clause 44

  DESIGNATING RESOLUTIONS UNDER PART V
  Amendments made: No. 6, in page 46, line 25, leave out "designating".
  No. 7, in page 46, line 27, leave out from second "a" to "shall" in line 28 and insert "resolution, the resolution".
  No. 8, in page 46, line 32, leave out "under this section".—[Ms Buck.]

Clause 48

  BUS LANES
  Amendments made: No. 9, in page 48, line 40, at beginning insert—
  'Section 4 (Penalty charge notices under Part II) of and'.
  No. 10, in page 48, line 42, leave out "is" and insert "are"—[Ms Buck.]

Schedule 2

  AMENDMENTS TO SCHEDULE 1 (ENFORCEMENT NOTICES, ETC., UNDER PART II (BUS LANES) OF THIS ACT) TO THE LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES ACT 1996
  Amendments made: No. 11, in page 63, line 2, after "TO" insert—
  'SECTION 4 (PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES UNDER PART II) OF AND'.
  No. 12, in page 63, line 3, at end insert—
  'A1. In subsection (2) of section 4, after "with respect to a vehicle" the words", by the owner of the vehicle," are inserted.'.
  No. 13, in page 63, line 12, leave out "thereto".
  No. 14, in page 63, line 12, after "notice" insert "or".
  No. 15, in page 63, line 20, leave out "4" and insert "(4)".
  No. 16, in page 63, line 21, leave out from "out" to end of line 22.
  No. 17, in page 63, line 22, at end insert—
  '(e) after sub-paragraph (4)(b) insert ";or';
  (f) the following sub-paragraph is substituted for sub-paragraph (4)(c)—
  "(c) that at the time the alleged breach of such order or regulations took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent or the owner.";'.
  No. 18, in page 63, line 23, leave out "(4)(c),".
  No. 19, in page 63, line 33, after "11" insert "of Schedule 1".—[Ms Buck.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  6.44 pm
  Ms Karen Buck: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  May I spend a few minutes explaining a little about the Bill? I shall seek to be brief.
  Although the Bill is technically promoted by Westminster city council, the Association of London Government has played a key role in promoting and steering the legislation through on behalf of all the boroughs, except the London borough of Barnet, which, for its own reasons, chose not to participate in the promotion of the Bill. However, Barnet has since written to the ALG to say that, when a further Bill is promoted, it would like the provisions of the current Bill to be applied to Barnet. As a result, I can say that the Bill is unanimously supported by the London boroughs.
  The Bill has been given full and proper consideration in both Houses. In the House of Lords, there was a debate on Second Reading—which is uncommon for private Bills these days. Because there were petitions against the Bill, it was considered by a Select Committee. The Bill was also considered in detail by the Unopposed Bills Committee in the House of Lords. Reports on the Bill were submitted by the Home Office and by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. In this House, petitions were again deposited against the Bill, so it was considered in detail by a Select Committee. The Bill was unopposed on Second Reading. The Bill has therefore received intensive scrutiny from both Houses.
  The Bill is what is generally known as a general powers Bill, in the sense that it deals with a number of subjects. Its provisions have been through a variety of different guises. Since the Bill's inception in 1996, a number of clauses have been dropped from the Bill following objections that have been taken on board and carefully considered by the promoters.
  It was thought at one point that the Bill could deal with issues such as prostitutes' cards in London telephone boxes and laws relating to alcohol licensing and the licensing of buskers. In short, the Bill could simply have been summarised as the "sex, drugs and rock and roll" Bill, which would have been, had I been in a position to sponsor it, the summit of my parliamentary career. Alas,

  383
  the provisions concerning cards in telephone boxes never came to pass, although the Government will soon introduce proposals on that.
  The provisions that remain deal with parking, public health, licensing, busking, bus lane offences and some miscellaneous matters. I will go through them in the order in which they appear in the Bill.
  Part II deals with parking. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, except in certain areas such as the Whitehall security area and red routes, the London boroughs exercise powers of parking enforcement and control. The councils have already added to their parking powers by virtue of the London Local Authorities Act 1995.
  The parking provisions in part II include provisions enabling the councils to serve penalty charge notices on offenders on the basis of evidence provided by cameras; enabling them to serve penalty charge notices where a parking attendant has been prevented from doing so; enabling the service of penalty charge notices to take place by fax or e-mail; and giving the councils powers of entry into vehicles that have been impounded where they contain things that may cause danger. There are a number of other technical provisions.
  Part III deals with public health. It enhances the powers of councils' environmental health departments by extending various parts of the existing statutory waste collection regime. It also enables the local authorities to require owners of certain private courtyards and, if necessary, adjoining owners to keep the area clear of refuse.
  In the main, the provisions of part IV are technical and consist of a number of amendments to the existing statutory licensing regime in subject areas such as public entertainment, cinemas and theatres.
  Part V is concerned with the licensing of buskers. As some of my hon. Friends have raised concerns about part V, I shall spend a few minutes explaining the thinking behind it. First, I should point out that the Bill does not in any way seek to abolish busking in London. As a great fan of busking, I am pleased that that is the case. In fact, I think that the Bill will enhance the ability of buskers to perform and the opportunity for their music and entertainment to be enjoyed by Londoners, while dealing with a small area of nuisance. Part V enables each council to introduce a licensing regime to control busking on the highway and on open spaces controlled by them. The Bill does not, therefore, apply to the London underground, for which separate provision is, I believe, being made.
  It should be noted that there are safeguards in the Bill governing the circumstances under which the councils may apply part V. Clause 33 provides that the council may pass a resolution if it wishes to apply the licensing regime to any part of its area. The crucial safeguard is contained in subsection (2), which provides:
  The council shall not pass a resolution under this section in respect of any part of their area unless they have reason to believe that
  there is a problem as a result of busking, including

  (a) undue interference with or inconvenience to or risk to safety of persons using a street

  (b) nuisance to the occupiers of property in or in the vicinity of a street in that part of their area.

  384
  The clause goes on to provide that the council must publicise the passing of a resolution by advertising in a local newspaper. Therefore, the council must have reason to believe that a problem is being caused by buskers in the first place. No doubt the receipt of complaints from local residents and businesses will play a large part in the council's thinking.
  The second important point to note is that councils can target certain areas and apply the licensing regime to those areas. Westminster city council has said that there are at present only two areas where there is sufficient concern to adopt the licensing provisions: Leicester square and certain parts of Covent Garden.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will a local authority's decision to designate an area as a problem area, thus requiring the licensing regime for buskers, be reviewed at a future date?
  Ms Buck: If the provisions are not applied properly and are not based on a genuine complaint or concern about nuisance, it will be possible to take the local authority to court and to challenge the decision. That is the bottom line, but no doubt local authorities will want to keep the situation under general review. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman whether the legislation contains other provisions, but there is that legal provision as a bottom line safeguard.
  Evidence was given to the Select Committee by officers from Westminster city council and from the council of the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames about the number of complaints that have been received. There are more than 900 a year in Westminster-there are residents in Leicester square and in a large number of properties in Covent Garden. Thoroughfares such as Leicester square can become extremely crowded, and the problem is often exacerbated by the presence of buskers, and more so by their audiences.
  It is important to note that in areas where part V does not apply—that is, the majority of areas—a licence will not be required for busking. That does not mean that buskers outside the licensing area can make as much noise as they like, because they will still be subject to the general law on nuisance and obstruction of the highway.
  Mr. John McDonnell: If there is already legislation in force that enables local authorities and others to take action against noise nuisance, why is the Bill required?
  Ms Buck: The difficulty is enforcement. The powers exist, but there are complications with regard to enforcement, which the provisions of the Bill will make easier. It will reduce the pressure on local authorities.
  Mr. McDonnell: Could my hon. Friend describe those complications?
  Ms Buck: I was coming to that. Part of the problem is that local authorities will have to serve an abatement notice on the person responsible for the noise, and later on prosecute the same person for a breach of the abatement notice in exactly the same location. That is impractical and difficult for a local authority to implement. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend.

  385
  Two buskers in particular—Mike Kay and Jeremy Helm—have opposed the Bill and continue to oppose it. Both petitioned against the Bill. They deposited their petition outside the time limits imposed by Standing Orders, but the Select Committee on Standing Orders allowed it to stand. Once their petition was allowed to stand, it gave Mr. Kay and Mr. Helm the right to appear before a Select Committee, which they did using their performing names of, respectively, Bongo Mike and Extremely Frank Jeremy.
  The Select Committee sat for over a day and examined in detail the promoters' case in favour of part V and the two petitioners' case against the Bill. The Select Committee decided that the Bill should be amended in favour of the petitioners to tighten up the wording on the circumstances under which the council can decide whether to apply part V to one of its areas, and the way in which the councils advertise meetings at which they resolve to make individual streets subject to the licensing requirements.
  It should perhaps be noted that no other petitions were presented against the Bill by buskers, and there appears to have been no other adverse comment made by buskers about the Bill. In fact, Westminster city council has received a petition signed by a number of buskers supporting the provisions of the Bill.
  Part V should not be seen as an attempt by the councils to ban busking. They recognise that buskers contribute to the environment and wish to encourage them. Part V is merely an attempt to control some of the problems that are caused by a few buskers in specific areas.
  Part VI contains a few miscellaneous clauses that cannot be categorised in parts I to V, and includes provisions amending the current law on dangerous structures and the service of certain notices under the Highways Act 1980. Local authorities whose area includes royal parks will be able to make a charge to the Crown for any advice given on health and safety and crowd control measures required for open air concerts.
  The Bill also contains amendments to certain provisions of the London Local Authorities Act 1995, which provide councils with the power to enforce bus lane controls. For the past year, four London boroughs and the City of London have been using CCTV cameras to enforce bus lane offences as part of a pilot project. However, it has very recently become apparent that the existing legislation does not make it clear who should pay a penalty charge notice when the owner and the driver of the vehicle are not the same person. Any motorist who has already paid his ticket has admitted his liability and no refund will be made.
  However, given that ambiguity, any motorist who from now on challenges his liability will automatically win his case. In order to resolve the problem, the main thrust of the amendments in the Bill is to ensure that the owner of the vehicle is liable for a bus lane infringement, not the driver.
  Mr. Robert Syms: Am I to understand that if the 50,000 people in London who have been given tickets that they have paid applied, they could get the fine paid back by the local authority?
  Ms Buck: That is not the situation. An offence has clearly been committed, and people have accepted
  386
  liability by paying. The problem is that local authorities do not have the enforcement powers under current legislation to deal with people who dispute their liability to pay. I hope that the amendment will close that loophole, which arose from a drafting error, and will clarify the situation.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Buck: I have almost finished, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Davey: I want to support what the hon. Lady said in reply to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). Surely the motorists were admitting guilt when they paid their fine. Does she agree that Conservative Councillor Daniel Moylan, the vice-chairman of the Association of London Government transport and environment committee, was misleading people and being irresponsible when he suggested that councils should not have been able to collect these fines?
  Ms Buck: Yes, I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is slightly perverse for a member of the Conservative party to endorse the actions of people who park illegally in bus lanes. All of us have a common interest in ensuring that the bus lane system operates properly, and that those people who are clearly in breach of the law have to face the penalties available under the legislation.
  I urge the House to support the Bill, which the London boroughs and the Association of London Government believe is in the interests of London and Londoners. The Bill has been subjected to a great deal of scrutiny by both Houses. It first commenced its parliamentary stages in 1996, and I ask that it now be passed.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. McDonnell: I shall be relatively brief. A number of hon. Members have blocked this Bill in the past, but they are on other parliamentary duties this evening—I mention my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen).
  Anxieties were caused by the part of the Bill that refers to busking. However, I shall first deal with the issue of bus lanes. I feel culpable, as I was the secretary of the Association of London Authorities during that period, and then the chief executive of the Association of London Government. In mitigation, I must point out that when the legislation was proposed in 1996 I proposed that the ALG, and not the London borough of Westminster, should lead on it. Unfortunately, the leaders of the London boroughs defeated me, and Westminster led. If it had been the ALG, I am sure that we would not be in this mess, but that is an aside.
  I want to deal with some of the detail of the legislation as regards busking. I shall not vote against the Bill, but some hon. Members want a message to be sent to the local authorities to ensure that they are not over-zealous in the prosecution of this legislation, so that we do not undermine people's basic human right to sing in the street.

  387
  I am interested in the detail of the legislation, especially clause 32, which exempts
  music performed as an incident of a religious meeting, procession or service.
  I take it that that is the Salvation Army clause. Does that mean that if a busker is singing "Abide with me" he or she will not be prosecuted? If it relates to demonstrations of a processional nature, such as the May day rallies of the London Labour party and the trade union movement, when music is performed and donations are collected for various striking causes, I hope that they will also be exempted under the legislation.
  How is the existence of "a nuisance" to be determined under the legislation? I am not sure that previous private legislation can guide us on that. What type of evidence will have to be collected to establish the existence of a nuisance? Clause 35 provides not only that a council may license a person, but that it may impose
  "such terms and conditions and…such restrictions as may be so specified.
  Obviously, those impositions may relate to the nature of "a nuisance". However, is it reasonable to impose terms, conditions and restrictions in relation to, for example, the nature of the music? Is clause 35 the Des O'Connor clause? Can we have busking without Des O'Connor? If that is the Bill's effect, we may well support it as we have never done before.
  Clause 36 states that there will be a fee to cover administrative and other costs. How will that fee be determined? Will it be decided in a vote of a particular committee or of the full council? Will it be checked for reasonableness by someone who is independent of the local authority?
  Clause 37 provides that the applicant can be refused a licence if he is
  reasonably regarded as not being a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
  In other licensing legislation, such as that regulating the sale of alcohol, "a fit and proper person" is a clearly defined term.
  Ms Buck: The licensing regime would permit such a person quite freely to perform outside the licensed area, provided that he or she did not fall foul of other provisions such as those prohibiting obstruction of pavements. The regime would therefore not place undue restrictions on people in the circumstances that my hon. Friend describes.
  Mr. McDonnell: The legislation would enable the local authority not only to define the area, but to say that, within that area, it will not grant a licence to a particular person whom it believes to be not fit and proper.
  I appreciate the need for that type of provision in the regulation of activities such as the sale of alcohol. Such a provision is entirely understandable in that case, because alcohol is a dangerous substance that could be distributed widely by those who are not fit and proper people and who are seeking to attain dubious objectives. But who is not a fit and proper person to play the tuba? Does such an instrument become a dangerous implement in the hands of some people, but not in the hands of others?
  388
  Perhaps we need to address the issue of how we define a fit and proper person, especially as we may be setting a precedent. The issue of the definition of "nuisance" is a thread running through the Bill, and I believe that it could be setting us up for future legal action.
  I resent another intrusion on people's basic human rights. I accept that the Bill, as amended today, will be passed. However, I am also sure that it will result in an appeal to the magistrates courts and, subsequently, the Crown court. I believe that we are establishing a costly bureaucratic procedure to deal with a matter about which there has been only a limited number of complaints.
  What worries me most is that we shall be handing over to a police constable, an officer of the council or even a contractor the opportunity to halt someone who is playing a musical instrument, to arrest him, and, if he continues playing, to take his musical instrument. In various designated licensed parts of London, we are about to see battles involving officers and contractors wrestling instruments from buskers. There will be the turbulence of the trombone in some parts of central London, and the battle of the bass guitar in others. Do we really envisage the legislation resulting in physical force being used to rip instruments from the hands of buskers?
  Perhaps we shall hear of a police constable appearing in the witness box and explaining that, "As I was proceeding in a northerly direction through Leicester square, I happened to hear the tune of a trombone. I immediately arrested it." The legislation will make the situation even worse than that. If the arrested busker cannot pay the fine, the instrument gets it. The instrument will be detained at Her Majesty's pleasure. Subsequently, the instrument will either be melted down or sent away for a period of detention, possibly—I would probably support this—at a school in the London borough of Hillingdon, perhaps in my constituency.
  I simply feel that the Bill goes a step too far in extending a bureaucratic procedure to deal with a fairly natural activity. Although I shall not be voting against the Bill, I believe that the London boroughs will have to use it with a relatively light hand. As previous London authorities legislation may have been used to the disadvantage of individual Londoners, I think we need to send that message to the boroughs very clearly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock would be concerned if I did not make the point that the Bill is another piece of private legislation that has not been certified by a Minister as complying with the Human Rights Act 1998. Parliamentary procedure provides that private legislation does not require such a statement. I am sure that my hon. Friend would want me to say, as many hon. Members have said before, that this type of private legislation should be fully subject to the provisions of the 1998 Act and that it should require that statement.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Davey: I welcome the vast majority of the Bill's provisions, which I believe will assist in the daily workings of London's local authorities. It will help to ensure that London's local authorities can do their job—as parking authorities, street-cleaning authorities and licensing authorities—without being impeded by legal loopholes.
  The Bill will assist London's local authorities in many ways. It will enable local authorities to use remote cameras for parking enforcement. We are all aware that,

  389
  in these days of tough budgets for local authorities, parking wardens and certainly police officers cannot be everywhere to ensure the enforcement of parking regulations. It has become increasingly difficult to ensure the enforcement of regulations meant to deter those who park illegally, hinder proper traffic flow and make residents' lives a misery. CCTV cameras seem to be a very sensible way of applying modern technology to a very modern problem, and I very much welcome that provision.
  The Bill will also enable local authority contractors or employees to issue penalty charge notices by post if they have been unable to affix a notice to the vehicle. Parking attendants are often faced with various obstacles in performing their duties. Although parking offences may seem to be a relatively minor civil matter, it is ludicrous that parking attendants should not have an alternative way of issuing notices to those who perpetrate them. It is a sensible provision.
  The Bill's provisions on bus lanes are particularly welcome. Like the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), I spent many happy hours as a member of the Standing Committee considering the Greater London Authority Act 1999, where we debated many transport issues.
  Mr. McDonnell: Happy hours?
  Mr. Davey: For me, listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), those were particularly happy hours. His insightful analysis of London local government, of the need for improvement in London government and of the Bill's proposals on London government made them happy hours indeed.
  When we were having those discussions, we very much focused on transport and on the legislation's provision for a new body entitled Transport for London. That is now established and working. Its main responsibilities at the moment—before the signing of the public-private partnership contracts, after which the responsibility for the London underground will be transferred to it—are various highways and the operation of London buses. One of the major problems that has faced London buses for many years has been the enforcement of bus lanes. It seems ludicrous to many people who have fought long and hard to improve transport in the capital that the recent case has prevented bus lanes from taking on their strategic importance in the life of this city. Bus lanes can encourage people back on to buses by making them a reliable and fast means of transport.
  I welcome the fact that amendment No. 12 was passed without opposition, as will those who run Transport for London. Without that amendment, much of the work that they are about to carry out would be severely hindered. I had thought, before I read the remarks of a Conservative councillor on the ALG, that that important amendment had all-party support and I am pleased that the Conservatives in the House did not oppose it. That would have gone against the spirit of the cross-party consensus and the need to get London moving. The amendment even had the support of an Evening Standard editorial, so it really is a consensus measure.
  390
  The Bill contains many commendable powers. However, I regret that one matter was not dealt with in the Bill and I hope that the Government will think carefully about it, because it relates—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can give clear guidance to the hon. Gentleman that on Third Reading he may talk only about what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Davey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feared that you might bring me to order on that point.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned his concerns about the licensing of buskers. When I heard about the new power, I shared many of his concerns. The royal borough of Kingston, along with the London borough of Westminster, asked for the change, so I inquired why it had made those representations. I am reliably informed that serious problems have been experienced in parts of Kingston town centre, which is a busy shopping area. There are large crowds on Saturday mornings outside the Bentalls centre in Claremont street and, occasionally, buskers get in the way. That is not to say that busking is not welcomed by people who shop in Kingston town centre. I have often seen large crowds gathering round both musical and performing arts buskers, enjoying the entertainment. That is welcome because it creates a happy, relaxed atmosphere in the centre of Kingston. [Interruption.] I shall not pursue the sedentary comment by the Whip, tempting though that might be.
  Although some buskers abuse their right to perform freely on the streets, such cases are few and far between.
  Mr. McDonnell: I agree that that concern exists, but other powers are available for use in such cases, including those dealing with obstruction. If too much leeway is given in legislation—for example, as it was in legislation on the distribution of leaflets some years ago—it can be misused. Several of my constituents were arrested three months ago for handing out animal rights leaflets under legislation rushed through the House some years ago.
  Mr. Davey: I share some of the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Some amendments have improved the legislation, especially following the Select Committee hearings mentioned by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. I hope that London local authorities will think carefully before they use the new powers and will keep any use under regular review. If buskers know that the powers exist and that local authorities can step in, the Bill might assist self-regulation. I hope so.
  I also hope that London authorities do not set up large bureaucracies to go over the top in using the powers. I hesitate to develop this train of thought, but I can imagine local authorities holding events to determine the quality of buskers. If local authorities decide to license certain areas for certain times, they will have to restrict the number of licences, and one hopes that they will not set up casting arrangements to decide the distribution of the busking licences.
  I hope that London local authorities will use the powers sparingly, because busking is an honourable tradition, which is enjoyed by many people. Traditionally, people have had the right to entertain their fellow citizens on the streets. Arts budgets are being squeezed, but buskers,

  391
  of their own free will, go out and entertain. It would be regrettable if the Bill were to reduce busking. That is not its intention, although we need to ensure that busking is undertaken responsibly. We shall see whether the measure helps to solve the problems experienced in Kingston.
  I shall share with the House how the Bill will work in the royal borough of Kingston. We have been fortunate to benefit from the establishment of a town centre manager and Kingston Town Centre Ltd., which work to improve the quality of the town centre for shoppers, businesses and those who work in Kingston. Dr. Julie Grail, the chief executive of the organisation, works closely in partnership with the retailers—the organisation is funded by many of them—and the local authority. She supports the Bill as she feels that it could serve a useful purpose, and she does not want to see it being abused by the local authority. She has worked closely with the retailers and the local authority, so she is well placed to give a practical view of the need for the powers.
  I could deal with many other issues, but I hope that at least one more Member wishes to speak.
  Let me make one final point, about street cleaning. The Bill gives London local authorities stronger powers to require alleyways to be kept clean. That has proved a great problem in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, which the Deputy Prime Minister described as a leafy borough. It is true that it contains many trees, that gulleys are blocked when they shed their leaves, and that the streets need to be cleaned at such times; but the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong to imply that, because the borough is leafy, it is homogeneously wealthy. I have made that point many times. Anyway, given that cars are often parked on the streets for a long time, cleansing contractors may not be able to ensure that all the leaves are swept up and all the gulleys are cleared.
  392
  The measure is welcome, as I can attest on the basis of practical experience—again, in Kingston. In the summer of 1999, three freak storms in Kingston gave rise to a lot of flooding. It was an example of "microclimate": the flood was intensive in one area, but not in adjacent areas. It was a remarkable meteorological event, and the fact that it occurred three times was particularly remarkable. The event is relevant to the issue of street cleaning. Because some of the gulleys in the borough had not been cleaned for some time, the flood was severely aggravated and many people's homes and property were damaged as a result.
  The powers conferred by the Bill will enable bodies such as the borough to ensure that that does not happen again. I have been given 250 pieces of case work, and 500 people have written to me about the floods that they experienced that summer. I think that those people will be particularly pleased about the new powers, and will feel reassured about Kingston council's ability, under the Bill, to fulfil its role—a role that it takes seriously—in keeping alleyways free of leaves and excess rubbish.
  Let me say again how much the Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We believe that it will strengthen local government in the capital and help the 32 London boroughs to do the job that their citizens elect them to do. The tasks involved are often basic, everyday tasks: regulating parking, regulating street cleaning, licensing, and so on. They could be described as mundane. However, when I knock on doors in my constituency—in Chessington, New Malden, Tolworth, Berrylands, Surbiton, Kingston and Worcester Park—I find that people raise those basic issues. Members of Parliament often expect people to raise issues involving the health service, the police or education, but in my experience of knocking on doors, most people want to talk about parking and street cleaning.
  I welcome the powers in the Bill, and hope that it will be given a Third Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Moor Lane School
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  7.25 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: I want to tell the House about a school that the Office for Standards in Education said was not improving, but the result of whose standard assessment tests—published yesterday—show remarkable and significant improvement.
  I want to tell the House about a school to which Ofsted inspectors did serious damage after a visit lasting just five hours, but whose science SATs have improved by 40 per cent. in the past year: 85 per cent. of pupils in year 6 have attained level 4 or above, as opposed to 61 per cent. In that context, it is at or above the national average. In the past year alone there has been a 7 per cent. improvement in English SATs results: the proportion of pupils attaining level 4 or above has risen from 67 per cent. to 72 per cent.
  Many schools throughout the country will not have agreed with the report and recommendations of their Ofsted inspectors, but in most cases it is likely that the inspectors' judgments were right. I will not contend tonight that there is anything wrong with a system of independent external inspection that seeks to raise standards in our schools; such a system is vital, and will inevitably mean that some schools are deemed to need special measures. But it is another matter to argue that the current Ofsted system is perfect and cannot be improved, and that Ofsted always gets it right. I believe that Ofsted must be reformed. There is mounting evidence for that, not least from last summer's report by our own Select Committee on Education and Employment, which investigated Ofsted in detail.
  It is because I have more, and recent, evidence of the need for Ofsted reform that I requested the debate. As I hope to show, the inspectors got it wrong in the case of the recent Ofsted visit to Moor Lane junior school in Chessington. Perhaps worse, the process by which they got it wrong was itself seriously flawed. What was the result of Ofsted's mistakes? A shattering of staff morale, leading to the resignation of the six teachers who were not already due to leave.
  The school will weather the storm. We are all determined that it will. It has great support from the community and from parents. The local education authority, rated by Ofsted itself as a "well-run authority", has already stepped in to protect the children's education from next September. I want to place on record my total confidence in the seconded head teacher, Mr. Tim Rome; I also want to reassure parents of my belief that Moor Lane was, is and will be a good school to which they can entrust their children's education. The purpose of the debate, however, is to share the lessons of the Moor Lane experience with the Minister, and those lessons suggest to me that a number of specific reforms are needed of Ofsted and its processes. I hope that, as a result of this debate, Ofsted will be seen to have been held to account for its mistaken processes, and that the school can put what has happened behind it.
  394
  As the Minister will know, there is a history to the case. It begins with the first Ofsted report, in 1995—a very positive report. The inspector said:
  Moor Lane School has many very good features and offers an outstanding atmosphere for learning. The school has worked hard to improve its provision and is beginning to reap the rewards.
  The Minister may be concerned to learn that the chief inspector, Mr. Chris Woodhead, said recently on television that Moor Lane should have pulled its socks up following the 1995 report. He did not appear to know that his own inspectors had been very positive about the school. Although the 1995 report identified areas needing improvement, as most reports do, it was largely very complimentary. It does Ofsted's reputation no good when the chief inspector is so ill informed, and shoots from the hip.
  The trouble really started with the April 1999 Ofsted inspection. It originally recommended special measures for the school, but its conclusion was contested both by the local education authority and by the school. Her Majesty's inspectorate upheld the appeal, so the report recorded only "serious weaknesses". Moreover, Ofsted also partially upheld the school's view that the April 1999 inspection had not been conducted properly. At the time, I wrote to the chief inspector to express my concern that the original Ofsted report had got it wrong and had undermined the school. I only wish that I had pursued the matter even further at the time.
  It is not surprising that the inspectorate and senior managers in Ofsted were worried by the 1999 report. Two extracts from the report show its inconsistencies. Paragraph 82 stated:
  On the basis of all the available evidence, including teachers' planning and the work in pupils' books, the overall quality of teaching in relation to the provision for English is unsatisfactory.
  Paragraph 83 stated that
  the overall quality of teaching in literacy hour sessions is good. It is at least satisfactory in nine-tenths of lessons and is good or better in almost half the lessons.
  That is rather inconsistent.
  What happened after the report was published and the appeals against it had been heard? The school and the LEA got cracking and got down to work. Action plans were drawn up, and close monitoring was instituted. Kingston's chief inspector is Patrick Leeson, an excellent and highly regarded specialist, and he took a hands-on approach. A new chair of governors, John Heaman—a councillor and a former chair of education in the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames—was elected. Mr. Heaman is the former head of a teacher training school, with 28 years of experience in training teachers. In all, the LEA and the school took the April 1999 report—the one that said that the school had serious weaknesses—very seriously.
  The House should know that the LEA believed that the school was making good progress after the April 1999 inspection. Neither it nor the school was complacent. It believed that the school still had some genuine weaknesses, but all parties considered that major improvements had been achieved.
  The December 1999 LEA report on the school judged that 86 per cent. of the teaching was satisfactory. In March 2000, the LEA judged that more than 30 per cent. of the teaching was good, with weaker teachers performing satisfactorily. In terms of attainment, the LEA inspectors

  395
  reported that there was evidence of improvement in English, mathematics and science in years 5 and 6. Yesterday's SATs results appear to bear out that view.
  What did the Ofsted inspectors find in their May progress report visit? Officially, we do not know, as the written report has yet to be finalised and published. However, we know the main findings, as the inspectors gave an oral feedback to staff directly after the visit that precipitated the resignations. The inspectors' overall judgment was that the school required special measures.
  The detail of some of the inspectors' oral feedback is interesting, as a report from the LEA to the Kingston council cabinet shows. The feedback suggested that there had been some improvement in standards, but that the school's attainments remained too low. That was not borne out by the SATs results. It revealed that 16 lessons were observed, of which seven were good, four satisfactory, and five unsatisfactory. It continued:
  All 12 class teachers were observed at least once and some twice during one afternoon and one morning.
  That is hardly a rigorous process.
  The report went on:
  In unsatisfactory lessons: teacher expectations were too low, tasks were not suitably differentiated, and pace was slow.
  It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the school has above-average special educational needs. Its special education unit—Skylab—achieves tremendous results. The school does not have low expectations of its pupils. As to task differentiation, it is hard to comment at this juncture, but it is clear from the oral feedback that special measures were not justified.
  Only five lessons were found to be unsatisfactory. The finding that special measures were needed contradicted the views of the LEA inspectors, the SATs examiners, and parents. Three obvious questions arise in connection with the Ofsted visit and report. They suggest that there is a need to reform the process by which the snapshot inspections—the brief progress reports—are made.
  First, why did Ofsted not wait until after the SATs results were available and use them to cross-check its findings? That would have required a wait of only a few weeks, and would have saved Ofsted from getting egg on its face. If SATs results are expected in a short time, the Ofsted process ought to require that they be taken into account.
  Secondly, why did Ofsted not refer back to the LEA, which had been working closely with the school in a concentrated and focused way for months? The Minister might say that Ofsted is not supposed to refer to the LEA about an inspection, as inspections are supposed to be independent and external. That is true, yet we are talking not about a full-blown inspection but about an extremely brief visit. It is possible that the Ofsted inspectors found five unsatisfactory lessons, but surely they should have sought corroborative data before pressing the nuclear button of "special measures". Such data would have backed up the limited information that they acquired for their findings.
  I know that the Minister is not as anti-LEA as the leader of the Conservative party, and I am sure that she believes that LEAs have a role with regard to inspection. The staff at Kingston LEA knew the school very well.
  396
  More significantly, from Ofsted's point of view, the LEA had worked well with Ofsted in the past. Kingston education authority has gone out of its way—and will do so again—to co-operate with Ofsted, and to work constructively with its inspectors. It is an LEA that Ofsted can trust.
  As I said earlier, an Ofsted inspection of Kingston LEA a few years ago found it to be well run and one of the best in the country. Improvements have been made since then, so why did the inspectors not talk to the education authority? I strongly believe that Ofsted must reform the way in which it works. When inspectors make a brief visit and monitor lessons for only five hours, Ofsted ought to refer to other sources for corroboration.
  My third question has to do with statistics. In a full-blown inspection, many lessons are monitored so that a representative sample can be used in a well-informed report. However, in an inspection that lasts only a morning and afternoon, only a tiny sampling exercise is possible. If the inspectors were familiar with statistics theory, they did not apply simple mathematics to their techniques and conclusions. It is remarkable that they should call for special measures after finding unsatisfactory five of the 16 lessons that they monitored.
  Of course there are practical constraints on the time that can be spent on progress report visits, and on the number of lessons that can be monitored. However, should that not suggest that inspectors apply much greater caution and recognise the limitations of the inspection process? I hope that inspectors exercise rather more caution in future, especially with regard to brief progress reports.
  There is a fourth reform that I should like to be made to the Ofsted process. Inspectors need to be more sensitive to the morale of teachers. It serves no purpose if Ofsted undermines morale. It certainly does not help children's education, or lead to higher standards.
  The teachers at Moor Lane school had been working very hard, none more so than head teacher Jane Wright. She and her staff are dedicated, committed and caring, and they have the confidence of the community. Jane Wright announced her retirement before the Ofsted visit, and I believe that she can retire with her head held high. However, I do not consider that Ofsted recognised her work, or the genuine achievements revealed in yesterday's SATs results.
  I am delighted that last summer's report by the Select Committee on Education and Employment suggested that Ofsted should do more when reporting inspection results, and that it should have a more "professional dialogue" with staff. I would go further, and say that Ofsted should have a more developmental role in terms of its links with, and feedback to, schools. It should not merely light the blue touchpaper and walk away; it must get involved with schools in post-report work. That would earn it greater respect and acknowledgement among the teaching profession.
  I have concentrated on the direct lessons from Moor Lane school's experience with Ofsted. In the time that remains, I want to look briefly at some wider reforms that I consider should be made. To do so, I shall lean heavily on the work of the Select Committee.
  The first reform is about accountability. I have received many letters and e-mails from parents who are dismayed with Ofsted and the way that it has undermined the school. Invariably, they ask to whom Ofsted is

  397
  accountable. From its report, it is clear that the Select Committee believes that Ofsted is not accountable enough.
  Although it is difficult to hold Ofsted and its individual inspectors to account for every individual report, the overall performance—the quality of inspectors, the processes involved in compiling reports, and so on—is a legitimate matter for the House. The Government should turn their mind to the question of how the inspectors can be inspected.
  A key question for many people at Moor Lane—and, I am sure, at many other schools—is: who is guarding the guardians? Recommendations 49 to 59 of the Select Committee report contain many suggestions, such as an annual debate, preceded by evidence from Her Majesty's chief inspector to the Select Committee, annual meetings between the Select Committee and the chief inspector, confirmatory hearings for the appointment of the chief inspector, and quinquennial reviews of Ofsted. Those all seem sensible proposals. They would keep Ofsted in check and ensure that it was inspected, and that it improved.
  I hope that the Minister does not think this is too controversial, but I wish to put on record my concern at the way in which Her Majesty's chief inspector reacted to the inspection report and the press accounts of it. Mr. Woodhead clearly did not do his homework well enough; he made inaccurate remarks about the history of the school. He has allowed the flawed system of progress reports to continue. In this case, the system has hit Moor Lane, but it may hit other schools if it continues. I think that Chris Woodhead should apologise to Moor Lane school, and I hope that when he reads this debate, he will feel that that is the right thing to do.
  I wish to end on a note of praise for the school—praise for the teachers, the head teacher, the governors, parents and children for the way in which they have withstood a great deal of pressure following the April 1999 report. They have also had the media spotlight on them, and they have conducted themselves very well, in a mature way. They are determined to pull together with the local education authority and the Ofsted inspectors, when they arrive in September, to make sure that the quality of education at Moor Lane school continues to improve from what is already quite a high level.
  This is a good school—the SATs results yesterday showed that. I pay tribute to all those in the school and the local education authority who made that possible.
  7.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on securing this Adjournment debate on an issue that is obviously important to his constituency and, as he has pointed out, important in terms of the Government's objective of raising standards for all our children.
  I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman acknowledged the Government's commitment to inspection as part of their strategy for raising standards in schools. Inspection provides a periodic external check on each school, helping to tackle under-performance and develop plans for improvement. Parents value inspection reports highly because of the inspectors' independence.
  398
  I speak with some understanding of Ofsted, having been on the receiving end of an Ofsted inspection before I was elected to Parliament. Observation of lessons is not designed to criticise teachers unjustly. Evaluation of the quality and impact of teaching is central to inspection. The evaluation of teaching is fundamental to the quality of education provided to pupils.
  Moor Lane junior school was inspected by registered inspectors in October 1995, and the resulting report clearly set out the key issues for action. As the hon. Gentleman said, points of action always come out of Ofsted reports. However, in April 1999, registered inspectors visited again and found that, in their view, very little action had been taken on the key issues. Making use of the safeguard provided in law, Her Majesty's inspectors gathered additional evidence, and the need for special measures was not corroborated, although they confirmed that the school had serious weaknesses.
  The school lodged a complaint about the conduct of the April 1999 inspection, which was partially upheld by Ofsted. Ofsted agreed that there had been an overemphasis, in drafting, on the negative statements in the report but, importantly, that did not result in any change in the report. It was made quite clear to the school and all concerned that serious weaknesses existed.
  Inspectors judged that at Moor Lane junior school one third of the teaching was less than satisfactory. Standards were below average in English, maths and science. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not tolerate low standards for our children, and the Government certainly do not. Children at this school deserve a better deal.
  In the monitoring visit in May 2000, Her Majesty's inspectors decided that the school had made no improvement and was failing to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education. We cannot allow a school that has been told that it has serious weaknesses to make no improvements. Action must be taken.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was possible to make such judgments on the basis of a brief inspection. In fact, the final monitoring visit in May 2000 was subsequent to the two previous visits—it was part of a programme of visits. Also, the criteria for deciding whether a school requires special measures are specified in law—that is, that the school is failing, or is likely to fail, to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education. That definition is explained in Ofsted's framework for school inspections and the accompanying guidance handbook for inspectors.
  Whatever the type of inspection, the judgment that a school requires special measures is made only when there is an adequate evidence base to support it. In addition, the decision that a school requires special measures is a matter for Her Majesty's inspectors' professional judgment. Ministers, local education authorities—even very well-intentioned constituency Members of Parliament—cannot, and should not, intervene. The most important thing is that the standard of education at Moor Lane junior school and others in special measures improves as quickly as possible and that that improvement is sustainable. We must not fail these pupils.
  I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about improvements in key stage 2 results this year. However, the 1999 Moor Lane key stage 2 results were for English 67 per cent. at level 4, for science 61 per cent. and for maths 52 per cent. That compares with a national average

  399
  of 75 per cent. for English, 84 per cent. for science and 73 per cent. for maths in similar schools. I was pleased to hear that it looks as though this year's results are an improvement in English and science, and I hope that the maths results are equally good.
  Moor Lane junior must now embed and sustain that improvement.
  Mr. Davey: Will the Minister reflect on the fact that the yesterday's SATs results showed a large improvement, particularly in science? That must surely bring into question the findings of the Ofsted visit in May.
  Jacqui Smith: As I pointed out, it is a professional decision for inspectors, based on the programme of visits that I have outlined, to determine whether a school should go into special measures. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that the task of raising standards for our children should not and cannot be put off because people do not believe that there is sufficient evidence. Decisions have to be taken, and they have to be taken in a way that will support improvements in schools.
  We recognise that inspections cause pressure, and we are working with the chief inspector to do what we can to keep that to a minimum. For example, we have shortened the notice period before inspections to avoid the lengthy build-up of pressure that teachers have told us is damaging. Ofsted's guidance for inspectors contains firm advice on the need to minimise stress for teachers.
  To respond to the hon. Gentleman's concern that changes and improvements be made in Ofsted's operation, there will be increased feedback to teachers and head teachers about teaching quality, together with improved training for inspectors, new powers for Her Majesty's chief inspector to remove incompetent inspectors and strengthened complaints procedures, including final review by an external adjudicator.
  It is not the fault of Ofsted, however, that a school finds that it is failing. In this case, it is the failure effectively to remedy the weaknesses identified by inspectors over the past five years that has resulted in the situation in which the school now finds itself. Many hundreds of primary and junior schools in England have been judged by inspectors to have serious weaknesses, or to be in need of special measures. None of them will have welcomed those judgments, but they have mostly tackled the problems and turned their schools around.
  This is the first time that a large proportion of staff have refused to accept the judgment and resigned. It is regrettable that many of them did so before seeing the detail in the report. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, it has yet to be published. I understand that the head and deputy resigned before the inspection took place, and that Kingston upon Thames local education authority acted fast to ensure that a new head teacher and deputy head were appointed for this September. What matters now is that Kingston LEA and the governing body are able to appoint a new team of talented and dedicated professionals to meet the challenges ahead and to make Moor Lane junior school a better place for both pupils and staff. That is already under way; three senior teachers have been appointed and further interviews will be held next week.
  400
  It is clear that to challenge and support our schools in raising standards, the Government need to engage in a range of measures. Such measures do not only involve Ofsted, although more than 1,000 schools have been given early warning that standards are slipping by being put into the serious weaknesses category by Ofsted. The vast majority—nearly 90 per cent.—act immediately to put things right. Those that show no improvement after a year, when HMI or additional inspectors pay a monitoring visit, are rightly placed under special measures.
  Each school is responsible for providing the high standards that will allow its pupils to achieve their full potential. LEAs play a vital role, through challenge and support, in helping schools to raise standards. However, schools are responsible for their own improvement, although LEAs play a critical role in supporting governing bodies and head teachers in their efforts.
  In the case of Moor Lane junior school, Kingston LEA provided much support for the school. It appointed additional governors when the school was put into the serious weakness category; and gave financial advice in response to the criticisms in the April 1999 report that procedures for financial planning were poor and that the school provided unsatisfactory value for money. The LEA provided monitoring of and challenge to target setting. However, the LEA and the school must work together on such matters and it is judged that the effect of the extra resources has yet to have a sustained impact on standards in the school.
  Mr. Davey: I share the Minister's praise of the LEA. It behaved well both before and after the events. However, surely that shows that, as Ofsted carried out a short inspection and could monitor only 16 lessons, it should have referred back to the LEA before giving the verbal briefing that special measures would be recommended.
  Jacqui Smith: There is a conflict between my statement as to the importance of an independent inspection regime and what the hon. Gentleman asks for. We need to recognise the independence of Ofsted. That is part of its value, and one of the reasons that parents value its inspections.
  It is important to recognise that Ofsted plays only a part in what we need to do to raise standards. For example, LEAs and schools have access to the standards fund school improvement grant. The grant will support expenditure of more than £290 million in 2000–01, enabling schools and LEAs to support activity to raise standards.
  Our policy to tackle failing schools is working. The number of such schools is falling and the average turnaround speed is faster; it stands at 18 months for schools coming under special measures since May 1997. That is down from 25 months for schools coming under special measures between 1993 and April 1997. Recent figures show that more than one third of primary and special schools turn around in 18 months or less. We are considering ways of strengthening our approach—for example, by increasing the rigour with which we challenge LEAs to identify and intervene in schools at risk at an early stage.

  401
  We are passionate about improving the education of pupils in under-performing schools, and have taken decisive action to tackle failure in our schools. Independent inspection is a key part of that. However, other Government action is crucial. We know that many schools are striving against the odds to improve—often with success. However, that success must be true for all schools if we are to ensure that all young people, whatever their background, can fulfil their potential.
  402
  I give my best wishes to the parents, the new staff and the governors of Moor Lane junior school for a sustained improvement in standards. That is what the hon. Gentleman and the Government want, not only for the children of Moor Lane junior school, but for all our children.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Euro
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
9.30 am
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am delighted to have secured this debate in this parallel Chamber on the cost of changeover to the euro. I welcome my hon. Friends and the Minister.
The debate is especially timely. The press is full of spin and counterspin on whether the euro should be debated in public. The only time I have ever agreed with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was when he said that a proper debate should be held on the subject. I wholeheartedly agree, as do most of my constituents, who feel that a debate should be held to enable the general public to be thoroughly familiar with the issues involved so that, when a referendum is held, they can make a properly informed decision.
Eleven countries met the Maastricht criteria. Phase 3, to lock irrevocably the national currencies of the 11 countries, took place on 1 January 1999. The currencies of those countries will cease to exist on 1 January 2002. Interestingly, Greece, too, has now been admitted to the system. Denmark will hold a referendum on 28 September, the result of which will be eagerly awaited by the peoples and Governments of not only this country but Sweden, where Danish developments are anxiously watched.
In October 1997, the Government set out five economic tests that must be met before we can join the euro. I refer to box 2.1 on page 21 of the Government's Budget 2000 Red Book—interestingly enough, there is just three quarters of a page on the euro in the entire book. It is almost as though Mr. Brown personally wrote the Red Book to ensure little discussion of the matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know how to refer to other right hon. and hon. Members of the House.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is almost as though the Chancellor personally wrote the Red Book to ensure little discussion of the euro. That scant three quarters of a page sets out the five economic tests that must be met before a decision to join can be made. They are:
whether the UK has achieved sustainable convergence with the economies of the single currency; whether there is sufficient flexibility in the UK economy to adapt to change and unexpected economic events; whether joining the single currency would create better conditions for business to make long term decisions to invest in the UK; the impact membership would have on our financial services…and, ultimately, whether the single currency would be good for employment.
Those five tests could be stretched to mean almost anything to anyone. I suppose that the first test is the most important and regularly cited. It relates to the
44WH
problem with our exchange rate and the fact that our economy is out of synch with those of other European countries.
Some of my constituents who advocate joining the euro say that that will be a magical way to ensure either that the euro rises or the pound drops, placing us in a realistic position to accede to phase three. Commentators generally estimate that we need an exchange rate of DM2.60 to DM2.70 before it would be feasible for us to join. Surely if we magically achieved that exchange rate, the argument that manufacturing businesses would be put out of business would cease to exist. The core economic argument about whether to join the euro would then be the exchange rate of the euro against the United States dollar and the other major currencies of the world. It is worth noting that an exchange rate is an expression of the economic performance of a country or a group of countries. It is not some artificial mechanism.
That is where the argument becomes difficult. Economic tests have been set as to why we should join the euro, but on the major tests it seems that the United Kingdom economy does better outside the euro than it would inside it. The euro has dropped and our exchange rate has remained relatively strong against the dollar, the currency of our major trading nation. On inflation, which is one of the major reasons for wanting to join the euro, our rate is lower than those in all 11 countries on an adjusted basis. More importantly, our unemployment is favourable in comparison with that in other countries, and considerably so when one remembers that the average rate of unemployment in the European Community among those aged 25 and under was a staggering 18.4 per cent., almost twice our rate. On the major economic tests, there is good evidence to show that there is no urgency to join the euro.
The Government's case has been shot out of the water by some helpful figures from the Invest in Britain Bureau. One of the Government's major arguments is that we are losing out on inward investment, but an article in Sunday Business of 2 July blows a hole in that. It states:
More than 40% of US investment in the European Union locates in the UK. And more than 25% of all investment in the EU comes to the UK.
It goes on to state that
70% of US businesses succeed in the UK compared with just 42% in Europe.
Some of those points will be made at a conference later this week that the Chancellor will attend, so no doubt he will get into an even more dormant mode about publicising the benefits of the euro.
The Government have announced the second outline national changeover plan, which said that preparations for joining should continue in the public and private sectors. I want to concentrate on those aspects. Through the introduction of secondary legislation on negative procedure, which is difficult to challenge in the House, the Government have given themselves wide powers to spend almost unlimited and certainly unspecified sums—whatever is necessary—on the changeover to the euro. That especially applies in terms of spending by the Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
Each Department has produced its own outline changeover plan. By the end of February, £6.3 million will have been spent in planning. Her Majesty's

45WH
Customs and Excise and the Department of Social Security will have invested £20 million in planning by the end of the year. That is a thoroughly good thing. The conclusion of the report of the Select Committee on the Treasury that was published on 22 April 1998 states that if we are going to go into the euro, proper planning will be absolutely essential.
Paragraph 9 of the report draws a useful parallel, stating that the European Commission frequently cites the UK's decimalisation programme as a good example of the implementation of a complex programme of change. The Committee recalled that one feature of its success was the fact that the decimalisation board consulted closely with retailers throughout and implemented the lessons that it learned.
Paragraph 9.2 reflects on the fact that preparations were in hand for five years, with no change for the value of the pound. Very few coins had to be replaced on decimalisation day itself, and there was general popular support. Despite all those factors, people working in shops in February 1972 say that that day was the worst of their working lives. The challenge of the euro is significantly greater, and one would expect people working in shops to find it difficult. Similar difficulty was anticipated on euro changeover day on 1 January 1999 but, despite the considerable numbers working in the City, the change itself was smooth. Whatever happens, everyone would admit that, in the unlikely event that the British people decide, in a referendum, that we should go into phase 3 of the euro, it is essential that the Government carry out proper planning. There is no doubt that considerable planning is taking place behind the scenes.
If the euro could be phased in over a longer period, costs to the taxpayer and private industry could be reduced. Existing systems would expire over their natural life, rather than being replaced prematurely in an accelerated programme to join the euro. The greater the warning before we join the euro, the lower the cost will be.
What is happening out there in the private and public sectors? It is worth examining the situation out there on the ground. In the past year, only 40,000 euro accounts were opened, only 4 per cent. of the total number of business accounts. London has 20 per cent. of the euro deposit market—my source is the Wholesale Market Brokers Association. London's global share of foreign exchange, at 32 per cent., compares with Germany at 5 per cent. In derivatives, London's share is 35 per cent., France's 10 per cent. and Germany's 7 per cent. My source for those figures is the Bank of International Settlements. People say that we are missing out by not joining the euro, but take-up of the euro is small in trade terms, especially among non-euro nations. The City of London is not at a disadvantage because we have not joined the euro, although it is often cited as being so. People can trade perfectly securely in a range of markets in London, which continues to have the lion's share of that trade.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I apologise because a Select Committee engagement means that I will miss the last part of my hon. Friend's speech. It is hardly surprising that large firms and the City are
46WH
making so few preparations for changeover, given that everybody knows that between 60 and 70 per cent. of the British people are opposed to scrapping the pound and replacing it with the euro. Why should businesses or the City want to spend great sums of money when they know that, if the referendum is ever held, the Government will lose it?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I was going to make myself later. There is also a more pragmatic reason for not making preparations. If there is no necessity to spend money on the changeover because business systems or trading patterns work perfectly well outside the euro, what is the incentive to spend on huge preparations for something that may or may not happen, on an uncertain time scale?
The Bank of England produces updated reports about practical issues, and it monitors the financial effects of the euro alongside the euro preparation units within the Treasury. Another problem, beyond the preparedness of the private and public sectors, is the production of euro notes and coins, which will have to take place in the 11 eurozone countries by 1 January 2002. Minting of all eight denominations of euro coins is also under way throughout those countries, and production is broadly on track to meet the requirement for 56 billion coins on the changeover date. Nine billion notes will need to be in circulation to meet transactions in the first fortnight after that date. It is a huge operation by the 11 eurozone countries, and it may be fortunate that we are not part of it. Those countries can allow their systems to settle down, and, should we ever want to go into the euro, we will be able to learn from their experience and see what the problems are.
What are the practical implications for Britain remaining outside the eurozone? The December 1999 edition of the Bank of England's "Practical Issues" report, to which I referred, states:
All the available evidence indicates that, since the launch of the euro, London has fully maintained its market share. Statistics for the change in London's market share are not yet available in every market. However, the latest figures serve to demonstrate the extent to which the City is not just a UK asset but an asset for the EU as a whole.
That applies whether we are in or out of the eurozone. In a number of aspects, London is transacting the lion's share of the eurozone business. For example, it has more foreign banks and subsidiaries—537—than Frankfurt, Paris and New York, which have 242, 187 and 275 respectively.
I want to deal with the technical aspect of preparation in the public sector, as well as the private sector, money-handling sectors and opinion on the ground. This month was the deadline for all national health service trusts, which run our hospitals, to create a product initiation document. I have referred to the changeover document that every Department was required to produce, and trusts will be required to produce such documents by the end of this month. At a time when trusts are financially and physically stretched—outpatient lists, and waiting lists to get on to waiting lists, are growing every day—they are being saddled with the additional responsibility of producing a changeover

47WH
plan. A document was presented to the Salisbury Health Care NHS trust by its finance director, who said, devastatingly:
there are no known benefits from this project just a great deal of hard work.
Perhaps more importantly, no additional funding has been made available to pay for the huge amount of work and new equipment involved. That is an indictment of this Government, who are making preparations in the health service for something that may or may not happen, on a time scale that may or may not be certain, yet people's lives are at risk every day. It is incumbent on the Government to provide the trusts, and every other Government Department whose work is being hampered by changeover plans, with the proper funding and expertise to do the necessary work. It should not expect it to be funded out of existing budgets.
From my work on the Public Accounts Committee, I know the huge amount of money that has been wasted on highly expensive information technology systems that do not work properly. People's pensions were affected by the huge delay in getting the IRS2 computer up and running in the Benefits Agency. It is still not up and running properly. There have been problems with IT systems in the Crown Prosecution Service, the health service, the Ministry of Defence and the Passport Agency, just to mention a few. The Government grant of £20 million to update IT systems for the change to the euro, which is far bigger than any envisaged for those systems, is a drop in the ocean. It will be an interesting project to work out the true cost to the public sector.
Mr. John Bercow: The United Kingdom is variously rated as the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world, the second biggest overseas investor in the world, and the third most attractive location for inward investment in the world. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that it is absurd that the Government are spending vast public sums on such an ill-conceived project? In the circumstances, should the Chancellor of the Exchequer be subject to a cash point fine?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The sums to be spent on a changeover plan must be considered carefully. In the public domain, two tranches of £20 million have already been spent and considerably more will doubtless be spent. I shall concentrate on the total spent by the private and public sectors as well as the cash-dispensing and note businesses because future and uncertain benefit could be gained against the present cost.
I have dealt at length with public sector costs and I shall now refer to private sector costs. Various studies have been undertaken into those costs. For example, Chantrey Vellacott, a firm of accountants in the City, has produced a well-founded plan showing that the costs to the private sector have already been £36 billion or 4.2 per cent. of gross domestic product. Some have criticised the company's figure as being unreliable, but KPMG's recent study of the 600 largest companies in the country shows that £12 billion has already been spent—and that was just by the 600 largest companies. It is reasonable to suppose that costs are at least double that, and that they probably amount to £24 billion. If we add to that figure the costs that have been spent in the
48WH
public sector and the £1.7 billion that will need to be spent by the coins and note business, we will see that the costs amount to a significant proportion of GDP.
The costs represent 10 per cent. of the total wealth of the economy in one year. On 27 January 2000, the Daily Mail compared the cost of changeover of the euro with the Y2K problem and the necessity for business to invest in new IT and other systems to deal with the growing trade of e-commerce. All such matters must be put into context because they are all costs that business will have to bear and which will come off their bottom-line profits. The article stated:
Y2K is a known cost, whereas EMU estimates have been increasing over time, so it is likely that EMU will represent an even higher multiple of Y2K costs.
It admits that the costs of preparing for the euro could divert companies from developing e-commerce strategies. Europe is already lagging behind the US in selling products on the internet.
There does not seem to be a particular imperative why the Government's five key economic tests should be met. On exchange rates, inward investment, employment, inflation and growth, it appears that no damage is being done to the UK economy. Indeed, there is ample evidence to show that trade with the United States and the far east has been growing since 1 January 1999, when the 11 eurozone countries came together. Britain could continue to be a magnet for inward investment throughout the world. It should trade with the rest of the world
One of my great fears is what will happen once we lock ourselves in. Under the Maastricht treaty, we would make an irrevocable decision to lock our exchange rate reserves into the system once we agreed to drop our opt-out against joining. The British people will need to think long and hard about the economic benefits. However, the economic benefits will not ultimately be the test. There will be a referendum. The British people will have to decide whether they want to join a system that will lead inexorably to a single European economy, following which we will have gone a long way towards having one European state. If, in the referendum, the British people decide to join, they would be taking one of the most far-reaching decisions made by the country since the second world war. No doubt the Government, through their spinning machine, will try their level best to persuade us that that is the right thing to do but there is much evidence on the other side to show that there is not necessarily any advantage to joining.
9.56 am
Mr. Tony Baldry: British business wants certainty, on which it can base investment decisions, as do potential overseas investors in Britain. A Conservative Government would bring certainty. It is certain that a Conservative Government would not introduce a referendum on the single currency during the lifetime of the next Parliament. That is settled Conservative policy, and it would be the outcome of a Conservative win at the next election.
We have, however, no clear indication of the consequences of a Labour win at the next election. There is an effective policy vacuum on the issue. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that the Government

49WH
have set five tests, but they are not tests and they do not constitute a line to be taken. The five economic tests are merely a policy mantra. I suspect that there are five of them because a Minister in difficulty on the "Today" programme or the "World at One" can simply recite them so that even the commentator becomes bored and moves on to something else. The Government's tests are merely a mantra.
As everyone now appreciates that there is no policy but only a mantra, leaks are inevitably emerging throughout Whitehall, from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The British people perceive that the Labour party and the Government want no debate whatsoever on the subject, this side of an election. The Room that we are in provides clear evidence of that: unfortunately, under the guidelines set up by the relevant Committee, the television cameras can focus only on the hon. Member who is speaking, and that means that they cannot show the area in which one would expect to see Labour Back Benchers, which is entirely empty. Not a single Labour member of the Select Committee on the Treasury, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry or the Select Committee on Education and Employment has managed to tear himself out of bed or from other activities to attend the debate.
The Labour party does not wish to engage in debate on the euro. It has sent the Minister, who of course draws his pay and rations from the Treasury, and I am sure that he will elegantly and eloquently recite the mantra of the five economic tests—but that will be it. That is all that we will hear from the Labour party, despite the fact that senior officials in the Department of Trade and Industry are talking about a meltdown. Andrew Fraser, the chief executive of the Invest in Britain Bureau—today renaming itself Invest UK—has referred to a manufacturing meltdown. Having given advice to the permanent secretary and others, the poor man was allowed to go to the media—not to renege on his advice that there would be an economic meltdown in manufacturing if we did not settle a policy on our membership of the single currency, but simply to apologise for the leak.
Our ambassador to Japan in a memo to the Foreign Secretary commented:
we flagged up increasing concern about the level of Sterling and uncertainty about British policy on the Euro. We assessed that "in the absence of new developments, Japanese companies in the UK will probably sit tight for another year or so in the hope that the Government will succeed in moving public opinion towards acceptance of Euro membership.
This is broadly what has happened, but with two new negative factors. First, we have seen some actual closures and moves to source outside the UK as a result of price pressure. Secondly, as prospects for early entry into the Euro are perceived through media coverage to be receding, companies are beginning to see £/ Euro unpredictability as a long term disincentive to investment in Britain.
More generally, a perception has been spreading among economic opinion formers that the UK is not at present a safe bet. For example a former vice minister of finance said at a Welsh seminar on the Euro recently that "Until the UK decides to join the Euro, there is an element of risk which makes the UK a difficult choice for investment."
Against that background, Madam Deputy Speaker, all Ministers can do is repeat the five economic tests. From whichever perspective one comes, a debate is needed on
50WH
this issue. The London chamber of commerce recently carried out a survey that found that almost three quarters of London businesses want Britain to join the single currency. Nine out of 10 executives who feel that a decision matters to their own company back entry. Yet not a single London Labour Member of Parliament is present to express the concerns of those businesses.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The relevance of what my hon. Friend is saying is borne out particularly strongly by what is happening to companies like the big brewer in my constituency, Shepherd Neame, which must decide within the next two or three months whether to have tills capable of taking euro coins and notes. In Kent, particularly, places like Leeds castle and Shepherd Neame pubs will be forced to take the coins and notes, whether or not we join the single currency. If we cannot debate these issues, how can companies make an informed decision?
Mr. Baldry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's comments. I fear that the British people will feel that the Government are involving them in one of the greatest spins ever. It is a deception, and it is disingenuous to have no public debate on the single currency between now and the next general election, and beyond. The electors suspect a sleight of hand, and, if and when a referendum is held on the single currency, they will feel that they have been cheated of a debate. Even worse, if, perchance, there were a Labour Government after the next general election and if they held a referendum, the public would feel that it was part of some plan in which they were expected to take the role of patsies. We all know that our constituents dislike that role and would reject those who put them into that position.
As Peter Riddell wrote in The Times yesterday, in some wise words that everyone should read,
What the Gomersall memorandum really reveals is that the debate on euro entry is already alive, and kicking, and cannot be put off until after the next general election.
Our discussion shows that the debate is alive and kicking only in the Conservative party, while the Labour party is running from debate. Labour Members want to do nothing more than recite the five tests as a mantra. Those tests are meaningless and politically self-seeking, and Labour Members could suddenly decide at any time that they were being met.
Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers are divided only over tactics, and not over their absolute determination to abolish the pound and join the euro? Does he also agree that the Prime Minister is hell-bent on dragging Britain into the euro at a cost that he cannot calculate, for a benefit that he cannot quantify and at a risk to the self-government of the British people that he dare not admit? It is a pity that the Prime Minister does not have the decency to reveal those crucial facts to the British people.
Mr. Baldry: I should not necessarily use exactly the language that my hon. Friend employs, but if that is the Government's collective view, it would be much healthier for democracy and the United Kingdom if they said so and initiated a decent debate. All that we have

51WH
now is some shadow boxing in the Cabinet and elsewhere. A proper debate is not taking place. That is disingenuous and dishonest, and discredits UK politics.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as I have had the Floor for the bulk of our debate. Does he agree that when the Government participate in the debate, they will have a duty not to put a highly pro-euro case, but to balance the argument properly, in our schools and elsewhere?
Mr. Baldry: There will be no difficulty in having a proper public debate. I have no doubt that people in business, public life and politics will speak robustly for and against our membership of the single currency.
Whether we join the euro is one of the most important questions facing the country in the early part of the millennium yet we are in a policy vacuum, in which the only people with the guts to speak up are officials and ambassadors, who are then immediately chastised and accused of deliberate and orchestrated leaks. I do not believe that those people leaked, but if an honest and open public debate is not led by Ministers, who have a responsibility to make clear the view of Her Majesty's Government, leaks from officials and others are inevitable, because that is the only way in which they can vent their frustration with the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has done us a service by initiating the debate, which has provided the graphic picture of the empty Labour Benches. Labour Members are engaging in a conspiracy of silence to ensure that a proper public debate does not take place.
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. I remind hon. Members that when I am in the Chair I should be addressed as Mrs. Roe, not as Madam Deputy Speaker.
10.8 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: Mrs. Roe, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I shall refer only to the narrowly defined issue of the costs of euro preparation.
A couple of years ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer established a committee on euro preparation, in which all parties were invited to participate. It is unfortunate that the Conservatives opted out, because that committee is questioning expert witnesses on many of the valid questions that Conservatives ask about the costs to the Government and the private sector. Participating in the committee at least removes some of the mystery and the elements of conspiracy that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) saw. I amicably ask the Conservatives to take a fresh look at their participation.
At the most recent meeting, for example, we had a perfectly businesslike discussion with a Government nominee and the leader of the Welsh nationalists. I represented the Liberal Democrats. The fact that the Conservatives were not present robbed the debate of much of the flow for which one would have hoped. Their complaints about secret information and spin lose much of their legitimacy because they have passed up that opportunity.
52WH
In the broader context, I am not a fundamentalist, as most hon. Members are not. Doubtless there are people who would have us enter economic and monetary union at any time, while others would not join under any circumstances. A sensible approach is to consider the undoubted costs and risks of entry and those of exclusion, and to balance the two. That is what the debate is really about.
The hon. Member for Cotswold was primarily concerned about costs to the private sector. Attempts have been made to quantify them, and they are well worth considering. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Chantrey Vellacott study, a useful starting point that suggests substantial figures for the conversion costs. He alluded to a key point in that study: if capital stock is replaced as it becomes obsolete, there is no cost, because a new generation of investments would be required in any event. That is one reason why as much certainty and predictability as possible is desirable.
A whole set of studies has followed, one of which was made available to the Chancellor's sub-committee a couple of weeks ago. It dealt with the costs of preparation in Spain. Some detailed small-firm analysis was undertaken, which suggested that, if the UK experience was similar to Spain's, the cost would be a maximum of £1,000 each for about three quarters of companies—most of the small companies. We are talking about very small sums, although a lot more work clearly needs to be done.
The big question—this is where we get into the big debate about the five conditions—is whether the benefits of joining or the costs of exclusion are sufficiently large to outweigh the undoubted predictable conversion costs. As a result of the past two or three years' experience, we have a better understanding of the costs to the UK of both exchange rate instability and highly inappropriate exchange rates. Despite recent adjustments, the exchange rate is still, in real terms, higher than it was when we were members of the exchange rate mechanism. The costs of that are felt acutely by manufacturing industry.
Whatever the rate, exchange rate instability is a major cost that manufacturers in particular must bear. There have been fluctuations of 20 to 30 per cent. in both directions in the past few years. Clearly, if a rate can be fixed with trading partners who account for roughly 55 per cent. of our visible trade, one does not eliminate exchange rate instability, but one goes a considerable way towards mitigating its effects.
Mr. Rowe: I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's concern about manufacturing industry, but it is my perception that the tourism trade, on which so much of our business depends, is also being hit very hard. Is not that also a considerable cost to bear?
Dr. Cable: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Perhaps I should more precisely have said that the trading part of the British economy, which is predominantly manufacturing, includes agriculture and tourism. All three sectors have been hit badly by instability and the over-valuation of the pound. The cost of exclusion from EMU is that the trading part of the economy would face indefinitely all that instability.

53WH
The second point—the debate is developing in an interesting way—relates to the impact on foreign direct investment It is true, and this morning's figures show it, that Britain remains an attractive destination for foreign investment.
There was a revealing survey last week of the 10 leading foreign investors—American, Japanese and European—in the UK, nine of which made it clear that, although they were happy to continue to operate in the UK, future investment would be heavily dependent on whether they could see Britain making progress towards entry to EMU. The impact of exclusion on foreign direct investment is unlikely to be viewed dramatically, but Britain's share of new foreign investment flows will decline. We can already see the relative share beginning to tail off. The consequences for jobs and the overall impact on the efficiency of British manufacturing industry—will become increasingly onerous as time goes by.
To add anecdote to statistics, the most telling example last week was Nissan, which has made a major impact in the UK because of high productivity at its Sunderland plant. The Japanese and UK management made it clear that they viewed the future of Nissan in the UK as conditional on participation in EMU within a reasonable time.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that exchange rates are not the only factor that companies take into account when they decide whether to invest in Britain? The wider macro-economic situation, including regulations and legal systems, is also important.
Dr. Cable: Exchange rates are only one among several factors, but the hon. Gentleman is complacent if he believes that the UK is far ahead of continental competition in other respects. An increasing percentage of foreign investment is going into France—traditionally regarded as hidebound by dirigiste controls. France is liberalising, at least partly because of the impact of the single market and EMU. For those faced with the brutal choice between liberalising European economies or the UK economy—still attractive in certain respects—EMU could make a decisive difference.
The third respect in which the costs of exclusion will prove important—and they are already making an impact—relates to the workings of the single market. As I enjoy pointing out to Conservative Members, the single market was Mrs. Thatcher's great historic achievement and it is having major consequences on European industry. The combination of the present single market with stable currencies is—as anyone in frequent contact with European business will know—having a major impact on the restructuring of European industry, fuelled by the rapidly growing eurobond market.
EMU has been an important catalyst. Both foreign and indigenous businesses across Europe are radically restructuring to take account of the realities of EMU, but British companies are not part of that process. As long as they are excluded, the long-term consequences on investment will be negative.
54WH
The costs of exclusion can be measured in terms of interest rates. Despite the fact that British short-term rates are moving upwards, the differential is about 2 per cent., which reflects long-term experiences of inflation. That amounts to a real cost for business and for domestic householders. The Government and the private sector will face conversion costs—and we should be honest about that—but the costs of exclusion will become more tangible and apparent as time goes by.
In conclusion, I share some common ground with previous speakers, who are absolutely right about the importance of debating these issues publicly. The Government have done us no favour by stretching out the uncertainty associated with British entry. Major uncertainty remains about when the referendum will be held and its likely results, which could have been reduced if the referendum had been tackled earlier in the Parliament.
Mr. Bercow: May I challenge the hon. Gentleman on what he just said? Interest rates rise and fall, and the proportion of variable rate mortgage finance in this country is substantially greater than in the member states of the eurozone. When calculating the cost of our becoming part of the eurozone, does the hon. Gentleman accept that he must factor in the surrender of our exclusive right to set our interest rates to people whom we do not elect and cannot remove?
Dr. Cable: The hon. Gentleman makes a major point about sovereignty, and a more specific point about interest rates and mortgages. I shall respond to the latter. It is true that there is more exposure to inappropriate interest rates if there is a variable interest rate system in the housing market. The hon. Gentleman, who is interested in finance and economic policy, knows, however, that much experimentation is taking place by British institutions. For example, Standard Life, which survived a proposal for demutualisation last week, is leading the market in introducing fixed-rate mortgages. When that spreads throughout the City, many of the associated risks will disappear.
The Government were remiss in not accepting the challenge of public debate, which those who favour EMU entry would win. They should make it absolutely clear that entry to the EMU is right for the British economy and should not hide behind the five conditions. Secondly, they should state that they will hold a referendum at the earliest opportunity—at the start of the next Parliament. Thirdly, on the basis of the promise of an early referendum, they should set out a timetable to prepare United Kingdom business to join.
10.22 am
Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate my hon. Friend for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on securing the debate, which affords the Government the occasion to report on the changeover. If the Minister gives a full report of what is going on, we shall learn some interesting truths.
The debate is not about whether we are for or against the euro. First, the citizens of this country are not stupid; they know that, for a long time, the British economy has been broadly in synch with that of the United States, not Europe's, and that our exchange and interest rates

55WH
therefore move in tandem with those of the USA. Secondly, events in Asia have shown how important it is to allow the exchange rate to take the strain, even though doing so may cause pain. It could be argued that that is the reason why the United Kingdom and the United States have enjoyed an extra three years of strong growth.
I take issue with some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. Europe is restructuring because that is what its business desperately needed to do; the feebleness of the euro reflected Europe's economic weaknesses. Restructuring in the UK started long ago as part of the Thatcherite supply-side reforms and it continues here, as it does in the USA.
Our debate focuses on the mechanics of the changeover and the costs. The Finance Act 1998 required the Treasury to be transparent about financial matters, and the Government's policy on the euro is relatively clear: they are pledged to join the euro when five conditions have been met. As has been stated several times, it is Government policy to prepare for possible entry by putting in place the necessary mechanisms, so that entry is not delayed by lack of preparation.
Making preparations is consistent with Government policy, but what has been happening in reality? What progress has been made and what are the plans? As with any commercial undertaking, one needs to know first about the costs to the public and private sectors. I acknowledge that capital equipment will need to be replaced, especially where such equipment relates to cash. It will not be difficult to produce figures for gross costs and estimated net costs to the public and private sectors. I hope that the Financial Secretary will take this opportunity to report estimated costs in the light of money spent and efforts made. We have seen only the Chantrey Vellacott report and KPMG estimates. According to Government data, Marks & Spencer estimates a gross figure of £100 million, and Tesco estimates £20 million. Lloyds-TSB estimates the cost of system conversions to be about £300 million. I assume that all that homework will ensure that we leave this Chamber much better informed about estimated costs.
The national changeover plan has allegedly identified the measures necessary to prepare the business sector, but I have read the reports, and to be frank, much of the information is guff. No clear analysis is provided of what is to be done and when. As hon. Members have pointed out, the process cannot compare with decimalisation—a relatively modest process that was successfully planned and executed over five years.
According to current Government figures, £6.3 million was spent on planning to the end of February and there is a further budget of £20 million. Although that may be wasted money, it is not very much to finance the grand changeover plan. The expenditure of such a sum would not prepare this country for joining the euro, were we foolish enough to decide to do so. Some £20 million has been budgeted for the Department of Social Security—what is that about? What will the health service be obliged to spend, given that it often has other, more pressing priorities?
In short, what is the plan? What are the plans for the public and private sectors, and what costs will they incur? Last year, many businesses voiced strong
56WH
objections to being pressed to spend money before a decision has been taken. Last week, I made several inquiries and found to my surprise that very little has been happening. In most cases, there has been all talk and no action. As I shall explain, the perception throughout the private sector is that the matter is on the back burner and, unlike a year ago, is not being addressed actively.
The Bank of England is the one body that soldiers on doing a splendidly professional job. Although its Governor has made it clear that the Bank does not think that it would be a good idea for this country to join the euro, it has set out for the financial sector, both institutional and retail, what would be involved, what needs to be done and what sort of detailed plan needs to be drawn up. I commend the Bank, as ever, for its diligence and professionalism.
The Government formed an organisation called BAG—the business advisers group—to go round visiting private sector businesses to tee them up, tell them what to do and gather information. I have received personal representations from several of the main banks: as far as I can tell, BAG has done precious little and nothing much has happened. Businesses are focusing on and concerned with the regulatory changes, taxes and UK employment burdens that have been imposed on them, but they are certainly not focusing on planning for euro membership. I understand from the banks that they have effectively told the Government that they have no intention of improperly wasting shareholders' money on the necessary technical changes until Government policy has been sharpened up considerably. They have also told me that it would take at least three years from now to put the economy in a financial position suitable for euro membership.
The Government are in exactly the position that they said that they did not want to be in. Even if—unlikely as it now appears—they were to win the next election and hold their referendum, they could not possibly meet the requirements within the time scale that they have set, because the necessary organisation and preparation has not been done.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware of an article that was published in The Times on 17 February, which described an ICM survey of 1,001 company chief executives that revealed that 87 per cent. would not make any significant preparations for the euro before a referendum, and that 73 per cent., compared to 63 per cent. last March, were opposed to joining?
Mr. Flight: I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely relevant intervention. He reminds me of another survey—which he has, no doubt, seen—revealing that only 15 per cent. of Japanese businesses that have invested in this country have any material concern about whether we join the euro—they have invested here because of the quality of our law, our language and the fact that we do not have expensive employment taxes. The myth that international investors believe that everything hangs on whether we join the euro is peddled for political reasons by those who want to join the euro, but it is manifestly not true.
The key issue is the Government's timetable. One of the few concrete things to have come out of all their planning is their bold and important argument that, if

57WH
they get back into power, they expect to take four months between proposing to join the single currency and holding a referendum, and 30 months between the referendum and joining. Given the state of organisation in the private sector—and, I assume, the public sector, although we have little knowledge of what it has been doing—it is clear that there is absolutely no way in which that timetable could be met. In 1999, regional forums were held around the country, but little emerged from them, because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, almost 90 per cent. of businesses are, rightly, not prepared to waste their funds until the Government show greater clarity of policy.
The events I describe reflect the fact that the wise people in the Treasury have quite rightly gone cold on the euro. I dare say that they have come to appreciate the sound economic and political reasons for which the Conservative party has, for some time, opposed euro entry. A major division between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry, and between individual Ministers, has become apparent.
The Chancellor recited as usual the mantra of his five principles in his Mansion House speech. However, it is telling that, toward the end of his speech, he said something that struck me as a coded signal against membership of the euro. He stated:
We cannot pre-judge the five economic tests. To do so before we have secured sustainable convergence would risk repeating past failures, mistaking exchange rate stability for stability across the economy and prejudicing our commitment to move Britain from the instabilities of a stop-go economy to greater long-term stability. The Government will not agree to a short-termist approach that would put at risk economic stability or the discipline that has created sustained growth, rising investment and—
so many new jobs.
Despite the coded nature of that statement, the crucial point is that there has been no material development towards convergence. As Europe gradually comes up, and the United States and the United Kingdom go down, as is likely after eight years of growth, there may be some coincidence of interest rates and inflation rates. However, in terms of economic cycles, the United Kingdom is ever more in tandem with the United States, while remaining at a 180-degree variance with continental Europe.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): The hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that the Conservative party was opposed to entering the single currency. My understanding of the Conservative party's formal position is that it would not take Britain into the single currency during the life of the next Parliament. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's position?
Mr. Flight: I am glad to hear that the Financial Secretary knows Conservative party policy and that he describes it correctly. The essence of our position is that, on both economic and political grounds, it would be against the interests of this country to join the euro. However, no one can ever claim to have perfect wisdom, so we say, "Let us see what happens." We could be wrong, and the lifetime of a Parliament is a reasonable period in which to determine whether we are wrong. That is common sense.
58WH
Treasury Ministers appear to be moving fast toward the same policies, in complete contradiction of the official policy of the Prime Minister and the Labour party. It is hardly surprising that the pro-euro camp in the Government has resorted in recent weeks to slightly desperate spin and public relations, led by the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, for Northern Ireland, and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who are spinning as hard as they can against the shift in policy that the Chancellor is attempting to initiate and to control.
As I said earlier, the Labour party is committed to entry, and, if it wins the next election, to holding a referendum as soon as possible. It is also committed to ensuring that the country is organised to join the euro if all those conditions are met, and to ensuring that delays do not occur because the pre-planning and organisation have not been carried out. However, if one focuses on reality, not on spin, one can see that little has been done in connection with the national changeover plan. The Government have given no advice to the nation or its businesses about what the true costs are likely to be. If the Minister acknowledges that and says that the approach is not part of a deliberate Treasury slowdown, he will have to say, by default, that incompetence is involved.
Representatives from the real business world, including the Confederation of British Industry, banks, companies and trade representatives, have told me that the issue is definitely on the back burner. The Government's measures mean that they have plenty of other things to do. Last year, they thought that they were being kicked and cajoled into making progress, but that has stopped and they have heard nothing for the past year or so.
I conclude by repeating the request that I put to the Minister at the start of my speech. What is going on? What will the costs be, what are the Government doing in the public sector, and what do they want to achieve in the private sector?
10.41 am
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) secured this debate. We have had an interesting discussion, and I congratulate him. To some extent, the discussion has trodden on familiar ground but I am pleased to have this opportunity to set out, once again, the Government's policies on these important matters.
Our policy can be summed up in the slogan, "Prepare and decide". That summarises the policy set out to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997 and reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in February 1999. We announced our commitment in principle to economic and monetary union and our belief that the decisive test for United Kingdom membership should be whether there was a clear and unambiguous case for us to join. That is why we set out five economic tests, to which several hon. Members have referred, which will have to be met before any decision to join can be taken.
I remind hon. Members that those tests are: first, whether the UK economy has achieved sustainable convergence with the economies of the single currency;

59WH
secondly, whether there is sufficient flexibility to adapt to economic change; thirdly, whether joining the single currency would create better conditions for businesses to make long-term decisions to invest in the UK; fourthly, the impact that membership would have on the financial services industry; and, fifthly, whether joining the single currency would ultimately be good for employment.
In view of the magnitude of the issue, we have said that, as a matter of principle, if, having assessed those five tests, the Government decide to enter, the decision should be put to the British people in a referendum. If we are to join the single currency, the Government, Parliament and the people must agree. We want to give Britain a genuine option to decide whether to join, if that is what the Government, Parliament and the people want to do.
We are keeping open the option of making a decision early in the next Parliament. That involves ensuring that those parts of the economy that would be central to changeover, such as the Government's revenue Departments, the wholesale financial markets and the retail banks, should continue to plan effectively. I welcome the point made by the hon. Member for Cotswold about the importance of having those plans in hand and of making progress. The second outline national changeover plan makes it clear that, thanks to the targeted work that has been carried out individually and collectively during the past year, the strategy is firmly on course.
I can tell the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that we have had continuing discussions with key stakeholders in the private sector. The illustrative timetable—the period of up to 40 months set out in the latest edition of the changeover plan, published in March—remains valid. It has been endorsed by the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce and the Trades Union Congress, so the fears that the hon. Gentleman expressed are ill founded.
Mr. Flight: Has it been endorsed by the all-important institutions, namely the banks? The Minister will recall that I mentioned that my soundings with the heads of some of our main banks had pointed towards a three-year programme.
Mr. Timms: As I said, the period envisaged in the changeover plan is 40 months. The plans have been endorsed by the banks. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bank of England had done a great deal of work with the financial services industry. Last month, it published a report on the practical issues arising from the euro. Progress has been made, and is continuing satisfactorily.
Our approach to preparing for the possibility of joining the single currency is to co-ordinate planning and facilitate the appropriate level of preparation. That involves, first, identifying areas key to a smooth and cost-effective changeover. Secondly, we will work with the key parties to agree effective ways forward. Thirdly, we will provide a framework within which organisations can take forward their planning. Fourthly, we will set out a critical path for the process. Fifthly, we can give a lead by planning for the public sector.
Following publication of the first outline national changeover plan, Ministers agreed that all Departments should advance internal planning and prepare outline
60WH
changeover plans by the end of 1999. Departments used a template-based planning approach. Officials worked with consultants to design a model—Ernst and Young was involved—that was piloted and rolled out to all Departments and designated key agencies. All Departments prepared internal planning documents before the end of 1999. Departments considered the services that they might provide during changeover and how they might convert their systems to the euro. They identified key planning activities and lead times for carrying them out. That exercise confirmed that only the Department of Social Security and the revenue Departments have lead times that require them to start detailed development before a referendum. Many public sectors are drawing on the experience of member states in the first wave and are working with the private sector in developing their planning.
With the private sector, we have facilitated a series of discussion groups, involving suppliers and users of financial services, to produce a set of common assumptions on the likely pattern of demand for euro services during a UK changeover. Those discussions will form the basis of future work to develop an understanding of the likely pattern of demand. The work will take into account the experiences of first wave member states and the evolving expectations of suppliers and customers.
The process has involved the retail banks, the utilities—through the Utility Buyers Forum—the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, the Department of Social Security, the Association of British Insurers and the British Retail Consortium. The City euro group is working on the needs and expectations of those in the wholesale financial markets who rely on retail linkages—for example, the fund management industry. There will be further consultation, including discussions with representatives of the large and small corporate markets. Contrary to the impression that was given earlier, a great deal of work is going on.
We are also learning by monitoring what happened in the first wave member states. We have an opportunity to see how the 11 participating member states managed the changeover to the single currency. They successfully converted their wholesale financial systems in time for the locking of currencies. That evidence backs up what United Kingdom businesses that have considered making a changeover are saying: that demand for euro services early in a transition period would be limited mainly to wholesale financial markets and larger businesses.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but as well as detailing the considerable amount of consultation, will he speak about the financial cost to the public sector using the Salisbury Health Care NHS trust example that I gave, in which patient care was being put at risk because the health service has received no additional budget to meet the cost of the changeover plans?
Mr. Timms: I shall certainly comment on the financial aspects, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no diversion of resources from front-line patient care to planning work. I shall speak about the costs that have been incurred by the public sector and respond to his intervention.

61WH
We have continued to give regular updates on our changeover work and, of particular importance in the context of our debate, the cost of the work that we have carried out. We provided details in the second outline changeover plan, published in March, on spending to date on preparations for the possibility of United Kingdom entry, which is some £6.3 million. That includes £1.6 million by the Department of Social Security, £1.8 million by Customs and Excise, £1.3 million by the Inland Revenue, £600,000 by the Bank of England and £500,000 by the Treasury's euro preparations unit. That investment has allowed us to undertake analysis and design work. We recognise that further work will be necessary in the key departments, and legislation has been implemented to allow Departments on the critical path—revenue Departments and the Department of Social Security—to invest in preparation for their large and complex information technology systems. References have been made to £20 million, which has arisen because three Departments—the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise—plan to invest around £20 million during the current financial year. That will ensure that the public sector is ready for the possibility of a decision to join early in the next Parliament and to follow the illustrative 40-month timetable set out in our published changeover plans, if required.
Mr. Rowe: I do not wish to distract the Minister from his argument and, if I have intervened too early, perhaps he will forgive me. Will he say something about the likely impact on the local economy of the circulation of notes and coins, and their acceptability across counters?
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Major stores in Oxford street already accept notes and coins of other currencies, and I have no doubt that they expect to accept euros. The hon. Gentleman may be right: there may be a wider decision to accept euros in tourist areas in the United Kingdom.
I turn to spending beyond a positive referendum result. We must distinguish between the costs incurred by the public and private sectors. We have not estimated the total cost to the public sector of a changeover because planning is still incomplete, so we are not able to do so. However, the cost of a changeover would essentially depend on the approach adopted by the public sector.
We recognise the importance of continuing to monitor the position closely. In the event of a changeover, any spending would be scrutinised by the Treasury in the usual way, just as departmental spending has been. In the private sector, the cost would depend on the approach taken to a changeover by each firm and the extent to which the euro had been considered in investment decisions prior to joining. Those are commercial decisions for individual companies.
I am a little sceptical about the value and the feasibility of trying to produce overall estimates for the whole private sector. A major survey would certainly be necessary for the production of a robust estimate, the
62WH
conduct of which would place a significant and unnecessary burden on businesses. However, we are working hard to ensure that a changeover would be cost effective. We are consulting widely to establish the key issues in a changeover and how they might be addressed, and we are monitoring the experiences of the first wave countries. We are consulting their key customers and learning from the experience of the first wave member states. The revenue Departments believe that the best use of resources would be to phase in euro services, ensuring that they invest only in those services for which there will be real demand.
I wish to respond to a couple of points that were critical of the Government's position. Hon. Members have asked why businesses should spend on something that might never happen. I agree with the hon. Member for Cotswold that people should take steps to prepare for a changeover. Each company has to decide on its own approach. Some sectors, such as the retail banks, the wholesale financial markets—to which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred—and retailers are critical of the changeover process, because they provide the infrastructure on which other parts of the economy depend.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for being exceptionally courteous during the debate. Are the Government considering whether returns for value added tax and income tax may be filed in euros and, if so, when is that likely to happen?
Mr. Timms: That is one of the issues that the revenue Departments are considering. A gamut of matters will need to be addressed. As the hon. Member for Cotswold said, changeover planning will take money from frontline services. All parts of the public sector must undertake analysis and planning for the possibility of UK entry. The hon. Gentleman was right to support that planning and, by undertaking it now, the Government will ensure that any changeover takes place in a smooth and cost-effective way. It will be a management exercise and such work will be developed to ensure that it does not disrupt front-line patient care, for example. Proper preparation will help to deliver a smooth and cost-effective changeover and ensure that public services will not be significantly disrupted.
Our policy on the single currency can be summed up neatly as being to prepare and to decide—the policy set out by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in October 1997 to Parliament and by the Prime Minister in February last year. I am grateful for the support expressed for preparations to be made in Parliament so that, should the economic tests be met, a decision to join the single currency can be made early in the next Parliament. Without preparation, that would not be a practical option. We need a framework for businesses that want to plan ahead. We have a unique opportunity to learn from the experiences of the first wave member states. Where expenditure might be required in the public sector—for example, in the revenue Departments and the Department for Social Security—legislation has been passed that will allow planning for that.
Parliament should be asked to provide permission for such expenditure. We have been open about our investment in pre-planning work, and our changeover plans set out what we have achieved and invested, the

63WH
direction of our future changeover work and the amount that the public sector has spent on preparations. We cannot estimate the cost of changeover at this stage. Interestingly, even the first wave has not produced official estimates of the cost of changeover work.
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Order. We now move to the next debate.

Organic Food and Farming
11 am
Joan Ruddock: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce a debate on Government support for organic food and farming. I am only sorry that it coincides with the Select Committee on Agriculture's taking evidence in its inquiry into organic agriculture. Perhaps that merely proves the subject's topicality.
My interest is long-standing, and was greatly increased by my involvement with Sustain, the coalition of organisations that drafted the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill. I first raised the issue in the House as a ten-minute Bill in the previous Session, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) introduced it this year as a private Member's Bill. I pass on his apologies for his absence for the early part of the debate; he hopes to join us later.
I acknowledge the Government's support for organics, and especially the interest shown by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Last year, more than £11 million was allocated to farmers who wanted to convert to organic production; in 1997, the figure was just £1 million. I was delighted by last month's announcement by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that a further £140 million will be made available over the next seven years.
The number of farms that have converted has trebled. In 1994, there were only 715 certified organic farms in the United Kingdom; by November 1999, there were more than 2,000. Research funding has increased, too. I do not know the details of today's announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the extra £1 billion for science, but I hope that some of it might find its way into the sector.
As in many other aspects of Government policy, much has been done, but there is much more still to do. The Government's declared policy and strategy is to expand organic farming in an open-ended way as far as the market will allow. I must tell my right hon. Friend that there is great scope.
UK farmers currently supply only 30 per cent. of the organic market—a market that is set to treble by April 2003. Given such a rapidly expanding market, there is an urgent need for more research, for expansion in certification capability and for infrastructure building. Much of the demand for organic produce stems from objections to genetically modified foods. Yet organic farming is set to receive 1.8 per cent. of the research budget allocated to agriculture this year, while biotechnology and genetic modification will receive more than 23 per cent. That equates to £2 million for organic farming and £26 million for biotechnology research, although organic farming has a huge market, and GM foods almost none.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will take the opportunity to tell us how she plans to increase the amount of organic food grown in the UK. Demand is already growing at 40 per cent. per year, and Iceland's welcome decision to go 100 per cent. organic, along with plans to set up dedicated supermarkets all

65WH
over the country in the next four years, suggests an even greater acceleration. The irony is that that demand cannot be met by crisis-ridden UK farmers, as the organic farmers scheme ran out of money eight months ago and will not reopen until April next year. Farmers will naturally hold off until incentives are in place, while other countries take advantage of our growing demand.
The Government's information line has received more than 2,000 inquiries about conversion to organics while the scheme has been closed. Can my right hon. Friend give any encouragement to those who are seeking to convert now? Are there any prospects of additional funding that could enable her to give guarantees of retrospective funding for farmers who could start converting before April 2001. I also invite my right hon. Friend to give us her estimate of market demand and the financial support necessary to achieve the Government's objective of meeting that demand. She will know that I, and the supporters of the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill, estimate that £90 million per annum, or £70 million more than has been promised, would be necessary for English farmers in the new organic farming scheme if the targets in our Bill were to be met.
I now turn to the wider picture. The current EU average for the percentage of land farmed organically is 2.2 per cent., so we can be pleased that the UK figure of 3 per cent. is above that target. That is partly due to the Government substantially increasing the amount available for conversion. However, we are nowhere near the top of the league table for European countries. In Sweden, more than 11 per cent. of the land is organically farmed. In Austria the figure is 10 per cent., and in Denmark and Finland the figure is around 6 per cent. Some—but not all—countries have had a longer period of conversion, but there are significant funding differences. First, the total funding that is paid to organic farmers in the UK is lower than in many other EU countries. Secondly, two of the 14 countries also pay on-going maintenance payments to farmers after the conversion period has ended. I suggest that we are considering a straightforward competition issue here, which my right hon. Friend might use in any conversations with the Treasury. I would be grateful for her comments on that.
Finally, UK organic farming is at a comparative disadvantage because the four European countries with the most organic farming are those that have set targets and developed a strategy to achieve them. That is no coincidence. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has acknowledged that targets can be useful in terms of fixing aspirations and underlying commitment. I guess that our competitors agree.
Organic farming straddles so many sectors and Government Departments that it is increasingly clear that its sustained and balanced development cannot be achieved without one clear target for all interested parties to work towards. Denmark made no fewer than 65 recommendations in its action plan, which resulted in increased investment in research and training, increased agri-environment support and the removal of barriers to increased organic production. We need to do the same. We need to examine the barriers to the development of the organic sector and find ways to overcome them.
66WH
That need not mean extra Government funding in every area. In some cases, the Government could simply act as a catalyst, analysing problems and promoting market support.
What should the Government do to benefit from increased organics demand? How can the Government put the UK among the best in Europe, rather than it being just one of the rest? Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends agree with me that the Government should adopt a target based on projections for the market. We believe that the market will require 30 per cent. of agricultural land to be organic by 2010. A strategy should also be developed to achieve that target, as suggested in the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill, as proposed by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. The Government's strategy is to expand the organic sector only to the extent that the market will accept. That clearly has an undeniable logic, but it is far too passive. Even a strategy designed to follow the market has already fallen way behind it. Setting targets and a strategy to meet them has many advantages, as the experience of other countries demonstrates.
Most of us believe that farming in this country is in crisis, and farmers have been encouraged to get themselves out of it through Government plans to help them diversify. The last thing farmers need is to plan to diversify by converting to organic farming, only to find six months later that the Government's money has run out again. That could result in financial ruin, and farmers will clearly not undertake the risk. They need to have confidence in the sector, and they need to see that the Government have a strategy and a clear direction.
We need to change from an organic sector that is developing in fits and starts, grinding to a halt when money runs out, to one that is set on a sustainable course of growth. A strategy to ensure that would need to be based on analysis of past demand and trends to predict demand from farmers and consumers. Enough money could then be allocated to the organic farming scheme to guarantee its continuity. The confidence of farmers and the industry in the sector would be raised enormously by a clear Government commitment to targets and a strategy to achieve them.
Such a strategy would also reduce imports. As a result, our farmers, wildlife, environment and economy would begin to benefit from the increased demand for organic production. The Government have found targets useful for procuring progress on many other subjects, such as poverty reduction. Why should organic food and farming be any different? Increasing organic farming through a target will not distort and restrict Government priorities. Instead, it will help to deliver current Government objectives on other matters, such as the environment, health, jobs and animal welfare.
The benefits of organic farming are now being well documented, but I would like to emphasise a few of them. There are major biodiversity benefits. Wildlife figures are plummeting, especially in farmyards, which is a major Government concern. Research carried out by the British Trust for Ornithology found that populations of most farmland bird species were higher on organic than conventional farms. That is one of the main reasons why the well-respected Royal Society for the Protection of Birds supports the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill.

67WH
There are human health benefits too. Organic food is less prone to synthetic chemical residues. For example, a quarter of conventionally grown new and salad potatoes tested for pesticide residues in 1998 were found to contain them, but none of the organic potatoes tested did. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food still advises the peeling of fruit and vegetables because of concern about pesticides. The continued use of lindane in this country is a specific worry, due to its link to breast cancer. Male fertility levels have fallen by about half since the second world war, and a new Dutch study suggests links to pesticide exposure. The steady rise of food poisoning costs between £1 billion and £3 billion a year, and is thought by many to be caused by some of the methods used in intensive food production. No agriculture debate can take place without reference to the BSE crisis, which cost £4 billion and the loss of 37,000 jobs, while the organic sector was BSE-free.
Organic farming also has benefits for the economy. It is estimated that between 10 per cent. and 30 per cent. more jobs can be created in organic systems. Importantly for the Government, organic farming, through delivering those benefits, eliminates some of the enormous hidden costs of conventional production, which have been estimated by Professor Jules Pretty of Essex university to be about £2.3 billion a year. Water companies estimate that it costs around £120 million a year to remove pesticides from drinking water. I urge my right hon. Friend to attempt some audit to find out how much a widespread take up of organic farming would reduce costs to the Treasury and other Departments and organisations, such as the national health service.
I tabled early-day motion 51 in support of the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill, which will target 30 per cent. of land to be organic by 2010. That early-day motion has been signed by 221 right hon. and hon. Members. In addition to that support, 71 groups representing more than 3 million people within their membership, also support the Bill. All sectors of society are represented in those groups, as are many private-sector organisations, including four of the largest supermarkets—Asda, Sainsbury, Waitrose and Marks and Spencer. The British public clearly want to green not only the fringes, but all of agriculture, and I believe that it is time for the Government to catch up with them.
The time is right for a total re-evaluation of Government agriculture policy. It would cost £90 million a year to ensure that the targets in the Bill were met in England. Although that represents only 3 per cent. of the £3 billion being spent under the common agricultural policy, it would be a highly constructive investment for the agriculture industry. In only a few years, there has been a colossal change in public attitudes to food standards, animal welfare and the environment. Food processors and retailers have been quick to respond.
As someone who buys as much organic produce as I can find in my local Sainsbury and Tesco—sadly, there is no local Waitrose—I am conscious that the supermarkets are monitoring my purchasing patterns. I am the target of mailshots that give me increasing amounts of information about the organic products that are available so, for a change, I am delighted to receive junk mail.
68WH
There is clearly a risk that expansion in market competition could undermine the benefits that I have extolled today. That is why the Government need to take a lead. Conservation standards and accreditation will undoubtedly become real issues in the continuing expansion, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will have something to say on those matters. Choosing organic food used to be the preserve of a tiny minority of the better-off, but today it enjoys widespread popular support. Research commissioned by Iceland, the food retailer, shows that 53 per cent. of people questioned said that they would like to be able to do a complete organic shop. Iceland mainly serves the less well-off in the community, but it has led the way in organics.
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, there will be enormous beneficial possibilities for this country if the Government give us a greater lead by embracing the targets in the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill. I urge them to accept those targets, or some of their own devising, to ensure that we seize on the great opportunity that will deliver real health, environmental and economic benefits. Such a course of action has widespread support.
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Before we continue, I remind hon. Members that I should be addressed as Mrs. Roe when I am in the Chair.
Joan Ruddock: On that point, I have previously been told precisely the opposite. That is why I did not follow the previous speaker.
Mrs. Marion Roe (in the Chair): Perhaps I should clarify the position. Deputy Chairmen have been appointed to take the Chair in this Chamber, but I have been nominated from the Chairmen's Panel. That is why hon. Members should address me as Mrs. Roe.
11.20 am
Ms Julia Drown: Thank you, Mrs. Roe, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on securing the debate.
My hon. Friend mentioned that the Agriculture Committee is taking evidence, in connection with which it visited a successful and long-established organic farm in my constituency. I want to raise some points mentioned to me by local organic farmers and farmers who are trying to become organic, so that my right hon. Friend the Minister can respond. I acknowledge the huge increase in support that the Government have given to organic farming. I welcome that, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford that more help now could make a huge difference in the future.
The first and most crucial point is that money to help to convert to organic farming has stopped for this year. There is no more available until next April, which is frustrating for farmers who want to get on with the conversion programme. A farmer in my constituency has 80 per cent. of his land already covered by the conversion scheme and wants to get further involved by going 100 per cent. organic. He cannot do that because that extra 20 per cent. of the land cannot be covered by

69WH
any other grant. It is a shame that someone who is enthusiastic cannot get extra support this year. When consumers are crying out for more organic food, and when farming is in such huge difficulties and has a real need to diversify, that situation seems crazy.
There is a growing demand for organic products across the board; the way in which the markets are increasing month after month, with no prospect of the demand falling back, is a salesperson's dream. More support now would make a big difference, especially in light of concerns raised over genetically modified crops and the other directions that farming might take. More support for organic farming would be widely welcomed by communities.
In organic farming, we have a golden opportunity that should not be missed. I say that for three reasons. First, Iceland has bought up supplies of organic food; that retailer would have liked to buy more from this country, but that has not been possible, so it has had to go abroad. Every month the number of GM crop imports increases, exceeding the growth of United Kingdom production in organic food. Therefore, every month the trade deficit widens. I would have thought that the Chancellor might want to consider that; perhaps he should discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister.
Secondly, the Government should invest more in organic crops because farming makes a huge contribution to biodiversity and would help to achieve the Government's sustainable development targets. As those involve the percentage of land farmed organically and change in the number of farmland birds, having more organic land would help us to achieve them. The Soil Association recently produced a report containing not anecdotal, but real evidence that organic farming contributes to biodiversity. The report brings together the findings of nine studies on biodiversity and organic farming. Lowlands were the main focus, but the study's conclusions can be broadened to other areas. Organic farming was compared to conventional farming systems.
The studies found greater levels of abundance and diversity of species on organic farms. There were five times as many wild plants in arable fields and 57 per cent. more species. Several rare and declining wild arable species were found only on organic farms. As to bird species, 25 per cent. more were found at field edge; 44 per cent. more in field in autumn and winter; and there were 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks.
Greater biodiversity was found in vertebrates; there were 1.6 times as many arthropods, which are important as bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in crop areas; one to five times as many spiders and one to two times as many spider species. On crop pests, there were significant decreases in aphid numbers and no change in the number of pest butterflies. Those significant findings provide concrete evidence that organic farming makes a positive contribution to biodiversity.
Farmland represents 76 per cent. of the UK's total area, so organic farming can clearly make a major contribution towards the conservation of our biodiversity. Organic farming is not limited to species
70WH
that we can see in the fields. It also offers huge biodiversity benefits for soil and aquatic ecosystems, while reversing the dangerous trend of falling agriculture and genetic diversity. For all those reasons, we should support a major increase in organic farming.
Another reason for seizing a golden opportunity and finding more money from every budget in MAFF relates to jobs. The Government rightly made the creation of jobs a priority and succeeded in doing so through the new deal. Conversion to organic agriculture could create even more jobs. Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming, estimates that 17,000 more full-time jobs—in rural areas, significantly—could be created. Job creation schemes can be less successful in rural areas, so rural employment is important.
It is widely acknowledged that organic farming creates more jobs—by somewhere between 10 and 30 per cent. Sustain adopted a middle course and estimated that 20 per cent. more agricultural jobs could be created. Increasing the current 3 per cent. of land farmed through organic methods to the 30 per cent. target in the Bill that we all support would create an additional 17,000 jobs—and perhaps even more down the line, through local markets and so forth. That should not be ignored; it could make a real difference.
Finally, I should like to raise a couple of specific issues mentioned by farmers in my constituency. The first is from a farmer who wanted to convert: he received his grant payment, but decided for several reasons not to proceed. One reason was that he did not own his land: he was a tenant and, although the grant came to him as a person, the land was separate from him. If the land were not farmed for the requisite number of years, he, as an individual, would have to pay back the money to the Treasury.
That is unfair because part of the problem is outside his control. If something went terribly wrong, and he had to move off the land, he would be in danger of having to pay back the grant if the next tenant did not want to farm the land organically. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there might be some flexibility in future to accommodate circumstances in which a farmer unexpectedly cannot continue to farm the land and someone else takes it over?
The farmer's second problem was that the banks put a lot of pressure on him, querying whether the market would exist for organic food. Banks are known to be prudent but that is taking prudence to extremes. They argued that because Iceland is buying up the market, prices would drop. Iceland has said that it does not want to drop the support that it gives to farmers and that it does not intend to drop its prices. The banks, however, were using the mere fact that it has woken up to this and has quite rightly bought up some of the organic supply to argue that they do not know what will happen in future. That is regrettable. There is obviously some concern out there.
The other concern, which has been raised by a dairy farmer who is converting in my constituency, relates to the different time limits. It takes a minimum of two years and three months to convert from milk to organic in the UK. In some other European countries it is possible to convert in three to 18 months. Denmark and the Netherlands were mentioned as areas where conversion takes place more quickly. Surely there should be a level

71WH
playing field. Is it perhaps a question of different accrediting bodies in different countries? Will we get to the point where farmers in Britain go to Denmark or the Netherlands to ask for accreditation? We could end up with two different definitions of organic in this country. Consumers want to know that a product is genuinely organic and properly registered. They would rightly expect organic food from France and organic food from the Netherlands to be the same as that from this country. Any comments that my right hon. Friend the Minister can make on that would be much appreciated.
I am pleased that we are having this debate. It is very timely as the Select Committee on Agriculture is in South Swindon today. I congratulate the Government on everything that they have done on organic farming. There is a golden opportunity: please can we find some more money to convert more farms to get closer and closer to that target of 30 per cent. of land farmed organically in this country?
11.32 am
Mr. David Drew: I am a member of the Agriculture Committee, which is taking evidence at the moment, so, had I not been given leave of absence, I should trying to be in two places at once. I should preface my remarks by saying that I do not intend to go into our investigations, other than in general terms. The Committee is fortunate to have the evidence of the House of Lords inquiry, which looked into organic farming and the European Union a couple of years ago, and I shall dwell on some of the ideas contained therein. A lot of evidence has already been provided by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for South Swindon (Ms Drown) and I shall not go over that again. Instead, I shall raise some points that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State might want to consider before she and her ministerial colleagues give evidence to the Select Committee.
I support the Bill proposed by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). It is important that we stand up and argue the case for organic food production. That case is clearly gaining momentum, as shown by Iceland's decision and that of millions of individual consumers. They have decided to go organic in part because of the problems with genetically modified organisms—the scandal I could say—and, more particularly, because of the BSE difficulties. There is also a positive aspect, which is that people genuinely want to know what they are eating, where it comes from, and what the possible impact on their own health and general disposition will be. That is a jolly good thing.
One of the arguments against the Bill is that its supporters are setting unrealistic targets that interfere with the natural market mechanism, which is not the right way to go about the problems: if the movement is driven by the consumer and the retailer responds, why are targets needed? That argument is wrong in two respects: first, there are stop-start problems, so there should be some smoothing of the conversion pattern, and to set a target for annual improvements enables the allocation of appropriate sums for the purpose. Secondly, we should take a more humane and sensible approach to agriculture per se than is possible in the madness of the common agricultural policy. We want to discuss the matter with other European Union member
72WH
states and within the World Trade Organisation, so that we can learn the extent to which organic farming can progress, and how it can be measured and encouraged.
Much of the evidence accrued on organic farming is anecdotal. An objective study of its environmental, economic and consumer benefits is needed; a study should also be made of the controversial subject of health benefits. I am in favour of organic farming, but I am not necessarily against conventional farming. There should be no trade-off. The notion that organic farming is good and conventional farming is bad is not the way forward. Objective research can benefit everyone. Besides helping those who wish to go into organic farming, research will also drive up standards in conventional farming, which will be no bad thing. There is much evidence for the benefits of integrated crop management schemes and reduced use of pesticides and fertilisers.
I am confused by the regulation and certification processes. Evidence to the House of Lords inquiry showed that the United Kingdom register of organic food standards—UKROFS, as it is lovingly called—is under pressure. There is a dispute about the role of the state in setting good standards for organic food, and it is argued that UKROFS should become the regulator in such matters. Self-regulation may be all very well, but the role of advocate must be separated from that of regulator if organic farming is not to fall into the same traps as those to which conventional farming has fallen victim. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will comment on the role of the regulator.
Finally, I want to give the diversity of the organic movement a quick plug. I have in my constituency a biodynamic farm, Koliska: biodynamic farming is a pure form of organic farming. People use the term "organic farming" to suggest that it entails a massive changeover to a Soviet-style approach, but it is not like that at all. Organic farming is a philosophy and those who believe in it know that there are different types of organic farming, of which biodynamic farming is one.
The debate is timely both because the issue is being investigated by the Select Committee on Agriculture and because of a consumer-led upsurge of interest. We are right, as parliamentarians, to tease out some of the issues. If we are not careful but simply allow events to unfold and arrangements to fall into place, adverse consequences may follow. I support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for North Cornwall and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford on securing today's debate.
11.40 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I welcome the opportunity to make three brief points on matters that are almost side issues, but which I believe are pertinent to the thrust of the debate.
First, organic farming requires a somewhat higher level of skill than is needed for conventional farming. Therefore, it is essential that we put enough resources into training courses, particularly in places such as Duchy college in my constituency, which now offers people involved in farming more opportunities to acquire the additional skills needed to manage organic farming properly. I hope that we will not forget that it is necessary not only to encourage new entrants to organic

73WH
farming, but to give those farmers that want to change their methods the opportunity to hone their farming skills.
Secondly, many people are switching to organic farming because they can obtain premium prices for produce, so the Government should recognise that the premium should not be eroded. We must ensure that new entrants' margins meet the expectations on which they base their business plans, and that can, in part, be achieved by not allowing supermarkets to attain a dominant position. At present, supermarkets are scrabbling around to find organic produce and they are prepared to pay higher prices than they would normally expect to pay. However, as supply increases to meet demand, the supermarkets will slowly and inexorably reach a dominant position. I hope that the Competition Commission report due out shortly will deal with fair trading contracts, which ensure a fair contractual arrangement between primary produce growers and retailers. We cannot allow the supermarkets to reach a dominant position from which they can squeeze farmers and growers, as they have done in other sectors dependent on supermarket trading.
Thirdly, the danger grows that unscrupulous traders will jump on the wonderful bandwagon and threaten the integrity of the organic farming movement by passing off non-organically grown produce as organic to obtain a much higher price for it. We must ensure that the powers of trading standards organisations are strengthened so that only truly organic produce can be presented as organic. If the public become less supportive because they feel that they are being conned, the process of regulation will be undermined. Trading standards organisations need the powers and the resources to assure consumers that when they choose organic produce, they get organic produce.
11.43 am
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to contribute to the debate, but I apologise to you, Mrs. Roe, to the Minister and especially to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) for being a few minutes late, as I was involved in a Select Committee.
If I am the adoptive parent of the Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford undoubtedly is its godmother. I pay tribute to her for all her work and for succeeding in securing the debate. I have not the slightest doubt that if that Bill does not reach the statute book, she, other hon. Members and I will redouble our efforts to ensure that we make real progress.
I am delighted that the Bill has attracted cross-party support. As the Minister will know, it is supported by not only a number of former Ministers, such as the right hon. Members for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but a cross-section of all parties and people of wide experience in agriculture and related sectors. I am interested in the subject for a number of reasons, not least because my constituency is agricultural and is suffering a great deal as a result of the decline in mainstream agriculture. Organic food and farming represent an extremely important opportunity for diversification by a hard-hit part of the rural economy.
74WH
I pay tribute to other hon. Members, some of whom have spoken this morning, who do not have a huge number of farmers in their constituencies. However, the Bill has attractions for us all. I have the pleasure of being a neighbour of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who is our party spokesman on food and fanning. In the previous Parliament, I was responsible for that policy. Therefore, I approach it with some experience.
I take as my text—having been properly brought up in a churchy family—the important statement made by the Prime Minister to the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union on 1 February. He said:
Our plans envisage a trebling of the area under organic farming by 2006.
I have discussed with Ministers whether that is a target, pledge, promise or merely an aspiration. I do not want to play semantic games. I take that statement as an encouraging sign. I think that all hon. Members will acknowledge that organic food and farming is an idea whose time has come. We may differ on the mechanisms by which our objective is achieved. However, we are all concerned to ensure that our fellow citizens, who are crying out for more choice of organic food, get that choice, with the assurance of quality, integrity and, if possible, that the food comes from British sources. I emphasise that point.
At present, British farmers supply less than a third of the organic food that appears on our retailers' shelves. I participated in an extremely interesting conference on 14 June, organised by Marketing Week. As far as I was aware, there were only one or two farmers in the audience of 100, but the representatives of the retail sector were there, clamouring for more choice, sourcing and supply from British producers. That is the challenge that faces the Government and, indeed, Parliament.
For reasons that have been well advanced by hon. Members, it is incredibly important that we enable British producers to meet the demands of the market. It is important to get a sense of the relative investment that has already been made. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), to whom I pay tribute for being a dogged defender of the organic sector of British agriculture and an effective champion on its behalf, referred to research. Organic farming is set to receive 1.8 per cent. of the total research budget allocated to agriculture in the current financial year, while biotechnology and genetic modification will receive £26 million. Organic food has a huge potential market. As we all know, genetically modified food has a very small market and it is probably declining. I would like to know how we should address that discrepancy.
Retailers are making it only too clear that the discrepancy in demand is huge. Unless we can speedily bridge the balance of trade gap, to which the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) referred, we shall have a difficult problem. The evidence of retailers speaking at the conference that I mentioned is that they will simply have to source elsewhere.
I take to heart the comments made by a number of hon. Members about quality control. Perhaps the Soil Association can be reasonably confident of comparable standards in other EU states, but I am afraid that we cannot be entirely confident about the current monitoring of food imported from other parts of the

75WH
world. I imply no criticism—that is a fact of life. However, it is clear that we cannot rigorously monitor production methods and the supply chain in distant countries.
It is therefore extremely important that we investigate quality control on imports. Conservative Members have raised this issue in this Parliament, and I support them in that regard. I raised it in the previous Parliament, when the Conservative party was in government and could have made a start on the problem. There must be quality control, so that British farmers can be confident of—to repeat the expression used by the hon. Member for South Swindon—an even playing field.
I shall speak only briefly, because I want to give the Minister maximum time to respond to this debate. There has been no full statement on the Government's position in recent months, but I realise—and hope—that things might be changing. I endorse everything said by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, who opened the debate, and other hon. Members, but I should add two specific points that relate to my own part of the country, the south-west.
First, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall said, the Duchy of Cornwall has taken a pioneering role, and I welcome the Duke of Cornwall's setting a practical example of what can be achieved. I hope that it will not be taken amiss if I describe the Duchy of Cornwall as a large operation—it is certainly a lot larger than most farms in my constituency. It is easy for such land-owning organisations to take a long view, but given the current state of the market and the profitability levels to which my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall referred, it is extremely difficult for smaller organisations to take a risk on conversion. In the light of the hiatus in support to which reference was made this morning, diversification by small farmers, who are the backbone of the rural economy in the south-west, presents them with a major problem.
We must put the figures in perspective. Last month, when I asked about the total amount paid under the common agricultural policy to farmers in the United Kingdom in 1999–2000, and what percentage of that money was paid to organic farmers, the Minister produced the following figures. Under the CAP, total forecast UK and EU expenditure on national grants and subsidies was £3,172 million, but the figure for the organic aid scheme was just £11.35 million. I would argue that that discrepancy is too great.
The second issue is of particular significance to the south-west, but it is also important elsewhere. In a number of areas, the relationship between methods of agricultural production and various forms of environmental protection is very close. That is true not only in the south-west but in East Anglia, where pesticide residues in the water supply present a major problem. They raise health concerns, but they are also expensive to deal with; indeed, they could even prove a major problem for water undertakings and water consumers in your constituency, Mrs. Roe.
Water charges in the south-west are already extremely high. I should hate to think that we had to pick up a bigger bill for environmental protection and reduction in pollution simply because we failed to invest positively in a better form of agricultural production. That is an
76WH
important issue, to which reference was made earlier. The rural White Paper, which is due in a matter of weeks, must contain a balance sheet showing the investment in organic food and farming and the benefits of reduced expenditure in other Departments because of the value that organic food and farming can give the rural economy.
In summary, the Bill is a win, win measure. There will be no losers in agriculture, because farmers who continue to farm conventionally will not lose out if some of their neighbours move over to a different form of production. Indeed, there could be a useful spin-off for conventional husbandry at a time when many farmers are really up against it and are seeking opportunities to diversify. There would be huge advantages for them if they could obtain this support, especially after their first conversion. Maintaining and sustaining the organic conversion is so important. Other European Union countries have been a great deal more successful than we have in that area, which is why we are comparatively far down the league table.
Major environmental advantages will be gained by promoting biodiversity, as the hon. Member for South Swindon said, and by reducing pollution and its related costs. There will be huge health advantages for consumers. I have tabled many questions on that subject. I regret that, so far, the health advantages have not received the attention or the research investment that one would have hoped. Water companies will also enjoy great advantages, at a time when they face increasing problems relating to chemical residues.
Rural communities will benefit from the employment opportunities. I would not go to the stake over the figures produced by SUSTAIN, but there are clear advantages in a more labour-intensive form of agriculture. Anyone—such as Mrs. Roe and I—who avidly listens to "The Archers" will know that Tony and Pat Archer work themselves into the ground. Sometimes, I think that they slightly overdo it. If they went to a real, modern organic farm, they would find that it was not quite as bad as we are given to understand.
The biggest single change will be the huge advantage for food retailers and processors. Market demand has leapt in recent months, and I was told by one of the most revered forecasters and analysts in retailing, at the conference to which I referred, that that increase in demand is unprecedented. Nothing has ever hit the retail sector with such speed and on such a scale as the demand for organic produce.
Last but not least, the Government are in a win, win situation. Having set their hands to this plough, they will reap great benefits if they are prepared to go the whole way, and to set clear targets and strategies for the development and expansion of this sector. I have noted hundreds of targets in publications from various Departments. There are so many that I have not managed to count them. Even the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has more targets of various kinds hidden away. I have no doubt that when the rural White Paper emerges in a few weeks, it, too, will contain targets. Those who have sponsored my Bill simply ask that there should be a target for the expansion of organic food production in this country. We have set a realistic time scale of 2010, and we look

77WH
forward with considerable appetite—and, we hope, cheerful digestion—to the approach that the Minister will take.
Finally, if we can do anything to assist the Minister, to strengthen her arm and to give her any support and encouragement that she needs in terms of another statement that the Government will make shortly on the comprehensive spending review, she has only to ask us.
11.59 am
Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on securing this important debate.
Frankly, the Government's record to date on organic farming is a sorry one. It is characterised by an underestimation of demand, incompetent planning and inadequate resourcing. The Minister of State will doubtless claim that the Government have greatly increased funding for organic farming under the organic aid schemes and the organic farming scheme. However, the Government are being less than honest with us because they compare the situation with that in May 1997, when British consumers' demand for organic produce exploded. Before May 1997, the organic market was tiny, but that did not stop the then Conservative Government setting up the organic aid scheme as far back as 1994.
The real question is whether the Government have capitalised on the opportunities of the organic boom that is taking place or thrown them away and held back the British organic farming sector at a crucial phase of its development. As has already been said, the organic farming scheme in England opened for applications in April 1999. The Government set a budget of £6.5 million for 1999–2000 and of £8.5 million for 2000–01. However, they massively underestimated demand from the farming community. That two-year funding ran out in six months because the scheme was over-subscribed. In October, the Government pulled the plug and said that no more money would be available until April 2001. Incredibly, they slammed the door on the growth of Britain's organic farming sector just when demand for organic produce was booming.
In an excellent briefing paper sent to hon. Members, the Soil Association stated:
To us it seems unacceptable that while UK agriculture is undergoing such a serious crisis and organic farming is one of the few sectors with an undersupplied and growing market, that its development in the UK is now on hold and foreign producers are taking advantage.
Late last October, the Government were shamed into providing £10 million in additional funds for the organic farming scheme, but that was sufficient only to clear the backlog in applications. They have since confirmed that they will not consider further applications until April 2001. By shutting off the flow for the new conversion payments for 18 months, they have ensured that foreign producers will tighten their grip on our organic market.
The Government say that they will reopen the organic farming scheme in April 2001, when they will start providing £18 million or thereabouts each year for the sector through the England rural development plan. During that plan's seven-year period of operation, the
78WH
Government are committed to making £140 million available through the organic farming scheme. The Soil Association says that that is not enough. On 15 June 2000, Simon Brenman stated in Farming News:
At least £25 million a year is needed to meet the demand.
It is interesting to note that £25 million was needed to satisfy demand from farmers during the six months in which the organic farming scheme operated before it was shut down.
Spending under the England rural development plan will amount to £140 million over the next seven years. The Soil Association calculates that that will take the level of organic farming to about only 8.5 per cent. in England by 2010. In view of the fact that domestic supply currently constitutes only one third of the market, which is expected nearly to triple by 2003, there should be enough funding to increase current supply, in the Soil Association's estimate, by 10 times by then if the Government's aim is to be met. Extrapolating forward, the Government should plan for 30 per cent. to be converted by 2010. In the Soil Association's calculations, the English scheme would need annual funding of £87 million a year. The Soil Association estimates that the Government's suggested figures are wildly out.
Mr. Drew: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Opposition are committed to the 30 per cent. target and will fund it accordingly?
Mr. Moss: I do not have much time, if the Minister is to respond.
The signs are that the Government are no less complacent now than they were at the outset of the organic farming scheme. Commenting on the first six months, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the Farmers Guardian:
There was an enormous rush. But I suspect we have reached a peak in those two years. We think the new money is enough to manage a careful expansion of the sector. We must have a steady increase, because if it is too sudden it could damage the market.
Such comments are patent nonsense. For a start, the peak was not reached in two years, but in six months. In the remaining 18 months, until the OFS is reopened, it is likely that demand for conversion payments will accumulate, not dissipate. Furthermore, as demand for organic produce is increasing at 40 per cent. a year, while British supply increases at only 25 per cent., failure to step up the rate of organic farming will weaken further the share of the domestic market held by British farmers. As a final twist, the Government have confirmed that farmers who start conversion outside the OFS—that is, those who convert during the 18 months for which the scheme is closed—will not be eligible for OFS payments, once the scheme reopens.
The Government's support for organic farming is more than a matter of finance, although the Government fail in that respect, too. Little has been done to control imports of food that calls itself organic, but which falls well below the organic standards legally required of British producers. Most importantly, the Government's incompetent policies on genetically modified crop trials have placed the future of the British organic sector in some doubt. Organic farming is

79WH
threatened by the Government's insistence on pressing ahead with the commercial planting of genetically modified crops, before research into their environmental impact has been completed. A survey by the National Pollen Research Institute puts the risk of cross-pollination as high as one in 93. Organic farmers have the right to farm without such a threat from neighbouring farms. Indeed, the Government do not seem to care about genetic pollution of GM crops. On 18 January 2000, Baroness Hayman told the Select Committee on Agriculture:
The organic movement has to recognise and find a way of living with…contamination from conventional crops.
The organic market is one of the fastest growing sectors of British agriculture, as it attempts to meet consumers' demands for new food sources. Organic farmers should benefit from common agricultural policy reforms that encourage less intensive and more environmentally sustainable methods. All European Union member states support farmers who convert to organic methods, and we feel that the Government should match the help afforded by their continental counterparts. The next Conservative Government will fund increased payments by redirecting the rural development regulation and seeking our share of the redistribution of the tobacco subsidies paid under the CAP. The research and development budget for agriculture has been skewed by the Government's overhasty endorsement of genetic modification. We would redirect the £120 million research and development budget and increase the £2.1 million allocated to organic farming. The Government's mismanagement has obliged farmers to spend money to start the conversion process, only to learn that funding has run out. The next Conservative Government will reform the system to guarantee support to suitably qualified farmers, before they embark on conversion.
As I said, the Government's record on organic farming is sorry indeed. The Soil Association believes that the Government fail on three counts, and we concur with some of its findings. First, there has been no forward planning. Secondly, specific problems have not been addressed—for example, the poor conversion rate in the horticultural sector and the fast-growing imbalance between conversion of the livestock and arable sectors. Thirdly, there are no targets. It is no coincidence that the countries with the highest levels of organic farming in Europe have all adopted targets and a strategy to meet them. Based on an analysis of targets in other countries and the development of the market here, the Soil Association believes that a target of 30 per cent. by 2010 is desirable and practicable. The Organic Food and Farming Targets Bill proposes such a target.
Wherever one turns and whoever one listens to, this is a major opportunity for British agriculture, but the Government are failing agriculture by failing to support the embryonic and fast-developing organic sector.
12.10 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We have had an interesting and worthwhile debate with a number of thoughtful speeches. I welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue that is important to the future of agriculture and food production.
80WH
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) for introducing the debate. The House recognises that she has considerable knowledge of the sector and that she has taken an interest in it for many years. I am glad that she and most other speakers acknowledge the greatly increased commitment to the organic sector that has been shown by the Government. Like other hon. Members, I welcome the fact that the Select Committee on Agriculture is investigating the issues. We were fortunate to have in attendance the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is a member of the Select Committee; the Government look forward to the outcome of its investigations.
My hon. Friend said that I might be giving evidence to the Committee, but that is unlikely. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has shown great commitment to the organic sector, is responsible for the matter in the Department, but he is away at an international conference at the moment. However, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the organic sector and more than happy to be responding to this debate.
The exception to the interesting contributions was that of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who speaks for the Conservative party. He could at least have recognised that we are spending more than 10 times the amount that the previous Government spent on the organic sector. It is bizarre to witness, as we so often do, Conservative Front Benchers talking about unspecified but huge increases in spending on whatever subject is under consideration when their party has an apparent tax guarantee policy based on decreasing public expenditure. The figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman this morning do not add up.
One of the obstacles to the Government's providing money for rural development generally has been that we were held back under European rules by the historically low level of funding that our country has spent on that matter and which we inherited from the previous Government. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was able to increase the amount of European support for rural development measures, including organic production, by around 30 per cent. Those historically low levels; have caused us real problems when trying to reach agreement at European level on the way forward for the rural development regulation.
I hope to respond to several of the issues raised in the debate, especially the detailed points made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in connection with his Bill. However, I do not have any dramatic or particularly good news to give him other than that which he has already received.
Organic production has made great strides, especially in the past two years. It has certainly caught the interest of a much wider consumer base and is well placed to consolidate and expand. This is an exciting period in the history and development of the organic movement, which holds great promise for its future development and expansion. We all know that consumers take a considerable and increasing interest in being better informed about the food that they buy. They take a much greater interest in what they eat and in the quality of food, and their considerable purchasing power can

81WH
obviously effect changes in types of food consumption. The degree of that consumer interest must be regarded as a healthy and welcome development.
Consumer pressure can lead to changes in the behaviour of retailers and processors, and in recent months we have witnessed such changes. That is particularly true in respect of the sale of organic food in multiples, through which about 70 per cent. of organic food is sold. We all witnessed a great expansion in the range and quantity of organic produce that they now offer. As well as increased interest from supermarkets and multiples, there has been welcome expansion in the number of specialist outlets, for example through box schemes and farmers markets, to which reference has been made this morning. I recently visited a farmers market in London and it was good to hear the dialogue between farmers and customers, much of which focused on issues such as the safety and quality of the food on offer.
Mr. Breed: Sometimes when people want to set up a farmers market, they are prevented from doing so by an ancient charter relating to a nearby city. Will the Minister not give consideration to such matters? Is it not time to sweep away such arrangements, so that farmers markets can be established where they are wanted?
Ms Quin: I certainly accept that, in some areas, there have been difficulties arising from antiquated arrangements. It is important that we look for ways to encourage farmers markets in areas where people want to establish them. In some cases, changes in legislation are needed, and they take time, but it is sometimes possible to exploit more flexible interpretation of planning guidance and planning rules. I agree that it is a matter to which we should give our attention.
One of the commitments made at the farming summit on 30 March was to work with planning authorities, especially on issues such as farm diversification. Farmers markets are an important part of the diversification of British agriculture, so we need to address and solve the problems that have frustrated the farmers market movement. None the less, we should rejoice in the fact that the number of farmers markets has increased so dramatically: from having almost no farmers markets a couple of years ago, we now have about 100 of them flourishing and doing well, and the movement continues to gather momentum.
Farmers are obviously seeking new ways in which to sustain their livelihoods. Those in the United Kingdom have become more environmentally aware and sensitive in recent years, in part because of financial incentives that encourage them in that direction. It is also part of a wider trend that reflects the growing desire in society as a whole for environmentally benign and environmentally friendly methods of production.
Ms Drown: Is my hon. Friend conscious of the distinction between other agri-environment schemes, which are funded continually and which, I am glad to say, farmers throughout the country have taken up, and
82WH
organic farming, which does not receive any more funding once the farmer has converted? Will the Government consider that issue?
Ms Quin: Organic farmers are eligible for participation in other environmental schemes and some take advantage of such provision. We should not consider aid to organic farmers solely in terms of the organic farming scheme or its successor under the rural development regulation. Several agri-environment and other schemes under the rural development regulation are of interest and benefit to organic farmers.
I stress the worthwhile nature of agri-environment schemes. Yesterday, I visited the Royal show, where I was pleased to see some of the pilot work that is being done in arable stewardship, by which I mean arable farming that promotes bio-diversity, the habitats of farmland birds and a tremendously welcome array of wild flowers and plants. It was a pleasure to see fields of colourful poppies and other flowers that were once prevalent in the English countryside, but which have disappeared in the post-war years. It is important that organic farmers consider such schemes, as they can have a real impact on British agriculture and on the countryside generally.
The demand for aid under the organic farming scheme shows the considerable interest of farmers in organic farming. Organic farming is not necessarily an easy option: it demands commitment. It is not simply a matter of not doing things—for example, not applying synthetic pesticides, herbicides and fertilisers—but one of disciplined and positive management. Close attention must be given to the health of crops and livestock and to the early management of pests and diseases. Above all, it requires the adoption of an holistic approach to the farming enterprise based on an effective rotation that ensures soil health and fertility, and many farmers have grasped that approach with enthusiasm. None the less, organic farming certainly needs to be undertaken with a sense of responsibility and commitment.
The Government's general ambition is for British farming to be prosperous, forward-looking and sustainable. It must be competitive and sufficiently flexible to be able to respond quickly and effectively to market changes and consumer needs.
Mr. Moss: Before the Minister finishes, will she enlighten the Committee on the Government's forward-planning approach for organic farming?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. This is Westminster Hall, not a Committee of the House.
Ms Quin: Those are precisely the issues that I intend to address. The Government have a strategy for the organic sector that will have a positive part to play in agriculture in future. However, I accept some of the views expressed about there being a great deal more to do. The area now under organic cultivation in the United Kingdom is modest, as are sales of UK organic farms in our shops and supermarkets. I recognise the potential for replacing imports, to which many hon. Members have referred: we can supply considerable amounts of some organic produce through domestic

83WH
production, but the amount of some other types of produce supplied by the UK industry is disappointingly small—I refer to fruit and vegetables, although some of them grow better in climates warmer than ours. However, I am convinced that a considerable increase in UK organic production is possible, and I hope that it will take place in the next few years.
We want organic farming to prosper and succeed. The schemes that have been in place since the Government took office have channelled a huge increase in money into the organic sector. Under the new scheme and the rural development regulation, the aid available from next year will be more than 20 times that which was available under the previous Government. That sum will increase in the next six years, which is the period of the regulation. The extra money that we have brought in has enabled us to tackle the backlog, which is important. We are aware that several farmers were frustrated by the fact that, especially under the previous Government, money was limited and that the incentive to go organic was therefore not as strong as they would have liked.
It is worth mentioning that some farmers are converting without aid. The sector is so attractive that there is a movement to go organic even among farmers who have not been successful at achieving aid so far. We are conscious of the fact that aid during the conversion period is especially important, as that is when various measures that result in a loss of income to the farm have
84WH
to be taken. Despite the fact that farmers expect increased income once the conversion period is over, there is a difficult period to get through first. We have been especially eager to target aid on the conversion period, rather than on a system of on-going aid, as is the case in other European countries.
The Government have increased aid to research and development in organic farming; that support is now worth slightly more than £2 million a year, and organic farmers benefit from some of the other research programmes that my Ministry administers, for example, some of the £8 million aimed specifically at research into biological methods has a direct and beneficial spin-off for the organic sector. Public expenditure on organic research in the UK is significantly higher than in most European countries. We should welcome that, although I am not averse to hon. Members telling me that we could do more, as that is also true.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall referred at some length to his Bill in respect of targets. He will be aware of the reaction to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. He referred to the Prime Minister's words at the farming summit—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up. We now move to the next debate, which is a standard half-hour Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones).

Human Rights (Saudi Arabia)
12.30 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones: Two weeks ago, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), spoke at the conference on investing in Saudi Arabia held at the Four Seasons hotel in London. He extended an especially warm welcome to Prince Abdullah bin Faisal bin Turki, president of the Saudi General Investment Authority, and expressed his delight at the presence of His Highness in the United Kingdom, which, he told the prince,
we like to think is your second home.
During his speech my hon. Friend made much of the fact that Britain is the second largest investor in Saudi Arabia, with investments $3.5 billion. He listed a string of well known British companies with investments there, and exhorted British business men to regard Saudi Arabia not only as a market for goods and services but as a joint venture and investment partner. He said:
You will have the…Government's full backing,
including Export Credits Guarantee Department support, and added:
There is ample capacity under the Department's Overseas Investment Insurance Scheme to help with projects in Saudi Arabia.
No doubt that would include the export of military equipment, given that almost half of total British arms exports go to Saudi Arabia.
Hospitality to the Saudi royal family continued this week, during the eight-day visit of Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, governor of the capital, Riyadh, who was welcomed by the Deputy Prime Minister and received by the Queen at Buckingham palace, as well as by the Lord Mayor of the Corporation of London at a luncheon given in the Prince's honour. I understand that Prince Salman also accompanied Prince Charles to a polo match, at which he presented the prizes, and had meetings with other Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Meanwhile, back in Saudi Arabia, a different sort of hospitality was being provided for my constituent, Mr. Mohammed Chaudhry, who continued to languish in a Saudi jail in Riyadh, the area under Prince Salman's jurisdiction, where Mr. Chaudhry has been detained without charge since 23 June last year. As has been well documented by Amnesty International and other organisations, Mr. Chaudhry is just one of many people who have been denied their basic human rights by the Saudi authorities. We must ask why the Government are prepared to subordinate the human rights of people such as Mr. Chaudhry to the interests of the arms trade and other economic considerations? The purpose of this debate is to highlight his plight, which has already been the subject of early-day motion 810, which was signed by 120 Members from all parties, and to give the Government an opportunity to explain to the House what action has been taken to secure justice for that British citizen.
I shall briefly outline the events that led up to my constituent's arrest. From 1988, Mr. Chaudhry was employed on an annually renewable contract as a manager in receipts and storage distribution at Riyadh
86WH
military hospital. Every December, he was responsible for annual stocktaking in the supplies department. Midway during the 1998 stock take, Mr. Chaudhry was mysteriously suspended from duty by his immediate superior, Captain Meshal Al Meshal. No reason was given, but Mr. Chaudhry was asked to return to work after one week. On his return, he found that his job had been taken over, which amounted to constructive dismissal. He felt that he had no option but to hand in his resignation, which was accepted by Captain Meshal.
Mr. Chaudhry believed that Captain Meshal wanted to replace foreign nationals with Saudi staff. He was required to work three months' notice to receive the full benefits of his term of employment, and planned to return home with his wife and two children on 25 March 1999. However, when stocktaking was completed, without further involvement by Mr. Chaudhry, a deficit of 20 million riyal was found. The hospital chief executive, Colonel Musa, dismissed Captain Meshal and reinstated Mr. Chaudhry, who was asked to investigate the deficit. As a result of miscounting by inexperienced staff, which Mr. Chaudhry identified, the deficit was subsequently reduced to 8 million riyal—about £1.5 million. However, the stocktake was never completed as it was cancelled in writing by Colonel Musa.
At about the same time, in February 1999, Shahid Bukhari, a storeman from Pakistan who worked under Mr. Chaudhry, was caught in the act of stealing medical supplies from the warehouse. Everyone working in the supplies department came under suspicion, and Mr. Chaudhry was told that he would not be allowed to leave the country until investigations had been completed. As he was required to remain in Saudi, Mr. Chaudhry's contract, which was due to expire, was renewed until 6 August. He was asked to help with inquiries, which he did willingly. All members of staff, including Mohammed Chaudhry, were questioned by hospital security. During questioning, Shahid Bukhari claimed that one Egyptian and one Saudi national had also been involved in the theft of supplies. The men were arrested and the matter was passed on to the military police, under Colonel Abdullah Al Mughari—the head of security who is believed to be a friend of Captain Meshal—and then to Colonel Ali Johani from the Ministry of Defence.
Mrs. Chaudhry, who is in Westminster today, says that she was told in a telephone conversation with Simon Lovett, then British consul in Riyadh, that Captain Meshal was given a court martial, fined and imprisoned, and that Colonel Musa was arrested. That has since been found to be inaccurate. Colonel Musa remains chief executive at the hospital, but Captain Meshal was moved within the Ministry of Defence.
The investigating authorities never completed the stock take begun by Mohammed Chaudhry to establish the exact value of missing supplies. Instead, the matter was referred to the Saudi Ministry of the Interior, which took the decision to arrest Mr. Chaudhry, apparently at the request of the military hospital. He was detained on 23 June 1999, five months after the irregularities had first been identified. During the first few days of his imprisonment, Mr. Chaudhry was interviewed twice. He co-operated fully and was assured by Saudi officials that there was no evidence against him. He was led to believe that he would be released after answering all

87WH
their questions. Sadly, that was not to be the case. He remains in prison even though no further interrogation has taken place.
The family fear that the involvement of Colonel Musa, who was arrested and then released, brought a political dimension to the case, and that Mr. Chaudhry is being detained as some kind of smokescreen. The conditions in which he was detained at Sulemaniya police station were appalling—a 12 ft sq basement cell with only one toilet, which had to be shared by 22 occupants. After six weeks he had become infested with bugs. Following the involvement of Simon Lovett, who visited Mr. Chaudhry on 4 and 10 July 1999—but who was not allowed to see him when he visited on 23 and 26 June, as it takes five working days for the British consul to obtain permission for each visit—he was transferred to Malaz prison, where conditions were better.
As can be imagined, Mr. Chaudhry's family, by then back in the United Kingdom and expecting him to follow them home, were distraught at news of his arrest. Mrs. Chaudhry has tried to maintain continuous contact with Simon Lovett at the British Embassy, and Liza Gibb, consular desk officer for Saudi Arabia in London, but her efforts at communication have not always been reciprocated. The family has been fortunate that Mr. Chaudhry's brother-in-law who has also been working in Saudi Arabia has been able to visit him and pass on messages. That relative also appointed a lawyer, but the British authorities have not been able to persuade the Saudis to let him see his client, other than on one unofficial occasion when he was not allowed even to discuss the case.
After Mrs. Chaudhry told me of her husband's plight, I, too, began protracted correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and received replies from the Ministers responsible for consular matters—first, from Baroness Symons who told me that it was not possible to interfere with the legal process of another country and, subsequently, from Baroness Scotland whom I thank for confirming much of the information given me by Mrs. Chaudhry.
On 29 December 1999, the control and investigation board in Saudi Arabia told the British embassy that Mr. Chaudhry could be released into the custody of his sponsor, the Riyadh military hospital. However, the hospital told the British consul that his contract had been terminated in August, so he was no longer under its sponsorship. The police said that Mr. Chaudhry could be released on bail if an unlimited financial guarantor could be found. None of Mr. Chaudhry's friends was in a position to provide such a guarantee. The embassy wrote to the governor of Riyadh, none other than Prince Salman, asking if one of Mr. Chaudhry's friends could give an appearance guarantee instead.
Eventually, on 22 February, the director of the governor's office, Dr. Nasser Daoud, said that Mr. Chaudhry could be released on bail only on the same conditions as the other defendants in the case, who had somehow managed to secure an unlimited financial guarantor. Meanwhile, I had written to the Saudi ambassador to ask him to meet Mrs. Chaudhry and me. He replied in January 2000, around the time when Mr. Chaudhry was returned to the Sulemaniya police station as discussions about bail were taking place—
88WH
which, to the dismay of the family, came to naught. The ambassador suggested that the matter was best dealt with by the British embassy in Riyadh.
On 18 May this year, as the anniversary of Mr. Chaudhry's detention without charge approached, I wrote again to the Saudi ambassador informing him that, although British consular staff had continued to raise my constituent's case, no progress seemed to have been made either in bringing forward his release or in the Saudi authorities bringing forward any case against him, despite having had 16 months to carry out investigations. I informed the ambassador that preparations were in hand to draw my constituent's plight to the attention of the British Parliament.
I received the ambassador's reply on Monday, in which he noted that the Egyptian and the Saudi who had been arrested had been released on bail after investigations. While the ambassador did not specifically mention it, Mrs. Chaudhry also believes that Shahid Bukhari is free. The ambassador told me that nobody offered bail for Mr. Chaudhry. He said that the British embassy knew about the case and had said that it was not its policy to provide bail. Hence, Mr. Chaudhry remains in custody. The ambassador ended his reply by stating that, because of the unusual situation, Mr. Chaudhry's case is now being expedited.
It would appear that a person caught in the act of stealing and his named accomplices are free, as are Mr. Chaudhry's superiors—the senior military officials who prevented Mr. Chaudhry from properly carrying out the work that he had always completed satisfactorily. At least, however, there is some hope that his case will be expedited. That means that the Saudis are now prepared to release Mr. Chaudhry on an appearance guarantee only, on condition that he remains in Saudi Arabia and is available for questioning while inquiries continue—as if he could go anywhere while his passports and documents are retained.
Understandably, Mr. Chaudhry and his family want to reject that offer. The Saudis have had 18 months to question him and have failed to do so. Furthermore, there is no sign of an investigation taking place. Mrs. Chaudhry is extremely worried that her husband could be kept in Saudi Arabia indefinitely. She wants the whole business brought to a conclusion. She fears for her husband's health if he is left in jail, where he can exercise only once a week. If he is let out, she worries about his safety and wonders how he will survive with no employment. Mr. Chaudhry eventually agreed to bail, but it is still not clear whether he is to be released.
Let us hope that the Saudi ambassador was right when he said that the case was to be expedited. If relations with the Saudis are as cordial as they appear on the basis of the reception given here to members of the ruling family, how can a British citizen be treated as badly as Mr. Chaudhry? Why has it taken 12 months to get bail on reasonable conditions?
Will the Minister explain why the British embassy was not prepared to offer an appearance guarantee for Mr. Chaudhry when another member of staff did so for another British detainee? Why has Mr. Chaudhry had no access to a lawyer? What information has been obtained about the likely length of the continuing inquiry? What guarantee can the Government, who are encouraging better relationships with the Saudi regime,

89WH
give to British citizens that their basic human rights will be protected if they travel to that country? Mrs. Chaudhry, is present today, and I hope that the Minister will respond to those questions.
12.46 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): It is usual to congratulate an hon. Member on winning an Adjournment debate, as if the choice of topic were an achievement in itself. I certainly want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) on her presentation this morning and on the manner in which she set out the facts of the case. I know that she has championed this case assiduously ever since she was informed about the arrest. I have a sheaf of letters in front of me, which were written by my hon. Friend on behalf of her constituent to various Government Departments from 5 July last year. She also tabled an early-day motion. She demonstrates exactly what Adjournment debates should be about—championing the cases of individual constituents, but also highlighting what Members of Parliament view as flaws in the structure of operations.
The case of Mr. Mohammed Chaudhry, who is in prison in Saudi Arabia, is a matter of great concern to me and, indeed, to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office generally. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has closely followed the case and our ambassador in Riyadh has actively pursued it. I have in front of me a chronology of developments—from Mr. Chaudhry's arrest on 23 June 1999 to the proconsul's visit at the police station on 4 July and beyond—and I am happy to make the information available to my hon. Friend. It shows that more than 40 direct representations have been made, as well as regular contact every other week. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that we have actively pursued the case.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised the case at the highest levels in the Saudi Government. On Monday this week, he raised Mr. Chaudhry's case directly and personally with the governor of Riyadh: he asked for the case to be expedited and for due legal process. It is wrong to convey the impression that the Government, the Foreign Office and the embassy have stood idly by. That is not true, as the evidence shows, and as I know my hon. Friend would acknowledge.
I do not accept that it is a case of human rights being made subservient to commercial interests in Saudi Arabia. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), said, in a speech to which my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak referred, greater openness will improve mutual understanding, develop common values and increase respect for international standards on human rights. That is why my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the case personally with Prince Salman on Monday. I hope that the House will accept in good faith that we do not resile from raising such matters when they need to be raised. Our commitment to human rights cannot be reduced to commercial interests.
The case highlights concerns about human rights in Saudi Arabia. It also highlights the difference that can be made by trying to be proactive, firm and sensitive to
90WH
achieve results. I must emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak that no single international law applies throughout the world. Different countries have different laws. French law is different from UK law, as is Sharia law. I underline that point, because we cannot assume that our law can override everyone else's. I know that that point has been taken.
I will summarise the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Selly Oak has outlined. Mr. Chaudhry was a manager at the military hospital in Riyadh, looking after medical supplies. On 23 June last year, he was arrested, along with three colleagues, following the apparent loss of £3 million-worth of supplies.
Our consul tried to visit Mr. Chaudhry that day, but was not allowed to do so, as the investigating officer was not there. He was unable to see Mr. Chaudhry until after the Saudi weekend, three days later.
The case was investigated twice—once by the police and once by the control and investigation board of the public prosecutor's office. In November, its report was sent to the public prosecutor. In December, it was recommended that all the detained men be freed on bail, pending the final outcome of the investigation. That recommendation did not benefit Mr. Chaudhry. He could not put up the unlimited financial guarantee that the Saudis required, and his former employer, the military hospital, would not sponsor him.
Our embassy lobbied the Saudi authorities at the highest levels to get them to drop the requirement for a financial guarantee. Our ambassador raised the case with Prince Sultan, the Defence Minister ultimately responsible for the hospital in which Mr. Chaudhry worked. The lobbying worked, because the Saudis said that Mr. Chaudhry could be released with only an appearance guarantee. That remains the condition, so the terms changed a little.
Mr. Chaudhry initially rejected that offer. He said that he wanted to be free and allowed to leave the country, or charged. I understand that he has now reconsidered and accepted the offer. We are pressing for his immediate release.
The case raises difficult questions. First, why was Mr. Chaudhry held for almost a year without charge? I emphasise that the Saudi system is radically different from ours: a suspect can be held without charge. We cannot demand that the Saudis change their system. However, we can lobby for our nationals to be given bail, when the length of time in jail becomes unacceptable, as it clearly has in Mr. Chaudhry's case. Therefore, we lobbied hard and our tactics achieved some benefit.
Secondly, why was Mr. Chaudhry not allowed to see his lawyer? We believe that all people charged with criminal offences should have the right to a lawyer to defend them. That is accepted in our law. Speaking to a lawyer is an integral part of our justice system, but that right does not exist in the Saudi justice system of Sharia law. We cannot assume that the Saudis will immediately adopt our practices. We would like that right to be extended internationally to all. In this case, we did what we could to mitigate the problem, meeting frequently but separately with Mr. Chaudhry and his lawyer.
Thirdly, why is the case still going on, given that Mr. Chaudhry has not been reinterviewed since his arrest? Again, we have lobbied the Saudi authorities at

91WH
the highest levels. We have been told that this is a complex fraud investigation and the truth will take time to uncover. We know from our experience in the UK that fraud cases are complex and lengthy. The key point is that Mr. Chaudhry does not now have to stay in prison until the investigation is completed. I think that we can hold that line.
I know that hon. Members wish—as the Government do—that we could do more for Mr. Chaudhry, but there are limits to what we can do. We cannot physically get him out of Saudi Arabia. Mr. Chaudhry is accused of committing a crime in that country. He is therefore subject to Saudi law and justice. We cannot decide whether he is guilty or innocent. That is a matter for the Saudi courts.
Dr. Lynne Jones: May I pick my hon. Friend up on one point? He said that Mr. Chaudhry is considered to have committed a crime, but has not been charged. Surely that is the crucial point.
Mr. Battle: Yes, but there is a difference between the law in the UK and that of Saudi Arabia. In our understanding of law, Mr. Chaudhry has not been charged, but under Sharia law the fact that he has been picked up and accused of a crime is considered part of the process. That is the difference between Sharia law and our law. We cannot simply override the process. We all agree that the situation is unsatisfactory, but what can we do about this man? We cannot give him legal advice. Our consular staff are not lawyers and it is obviously a job for lawyers. Even the legal advice structure is different under Sharia law because there is no habeas corpus in Saudi Arabia. That is the crucial difference. We have built that into our law, but it does not exist there.
We must live with the reality of the situation and press as hard as we can. It does not mean that we can do or have done nothing. Our staff have visited him 38 times and on four other occasions they reached the prison but were not allowed to see him. They have taken him clothes, toiletries and letters from his family. They have supported visa applications for his mother, brother, wife and children to enable them to visit him and arranged for him see a doctor and get medicine. Our embassy in Riyadh has raised his case with the Saudi authorities on 46 separate occasions, often at the highest levels. They have raised the subject of bail. They have urged the Saudis to conclude their investigations. They have complained formally about the quality of some of his food.
Our approach throughout has been determined by the need to do the best we can for Mr. Chaudhry in the constraints of the circumstances. As in the whole of our consular and human rights policy in Saudi Arabia, the key is getting results. We believe that Mr. Chaudhry should soon be able to leave jail on bail as our result of our lobbying. We will continue to press the case and do our utmost for both Mr. Chaudhry and human rights.
Hon. Members may know that we have concerns about human rights in Saudi Arabia. We take, and will continue to take every realistic and responsible step to press for improvements. At bilateral meetings, before, during and after the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1999, British officials encouraged the
92WH
Saudi authorities to co-operate more closely with such UN human rights bodies. At the same time we joined our European Union partners in a public statement of concern at the shortcomings in criminal procedures, freedom of expression, assembly and worship and women's rights. We urged Saudi Arabia to become a party to the remaining core international human rights instruments: the international convention on economic, social and cultural rights, the international convention on civil and political rights.
The UN Commission on Human Rights concluded that Saudi Arabia had responded sufficiently to complaints about human rights violations, including its judicial system, for consideration under the 1503 procedure to be discontinued. I can only emphasise that in welcoming the commission's decision to discontinue consideration of Saudi Arabia under the 1503 procedure, the Saudi Arabian Government announced their intention to accede to those international conventions and covenants. We will continue to press for early accession.
Throughout the whole of 1999 we maintained a policy of constructive engagement on human rights with the Saudi Government through frank and private exchanges, meetings and visits. In April 1999, at the invitation of the British Government, the Saudi Minister of Justice attended a British Council seminar in London on "Britain and Islam" which included debates on aspects of human rights, education, gender, race and religion. The Saudi Minister met the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to discuss human rights and Sharia law and relations between Muslim and non-Muslim communities in the UK and Saudi Arabia.
During a visit to Saudi Arabia in October 1999, my hon. Friend the Minister of State raised human rights with the Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister. They agreed on further bilateral exchanges. That was followed in December by a debate at the UK-Saudi Joint Cultural Committee in London, a forum specifically established to develop relations between Government and non-Government organisations. We intend to keep up the pressure and to continue to focus on human rights and the differences that Sharia and UK law throw up in particular cases such as this one.
On 22 May at the European Union Gulf Cooperation Council ministerial meeting, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary debated human rights with his Saudi opposite number. My right hon. Friend emphasised the importance of the universal declaration of human, economic and social rights and the UN mechanisms designed to protect individuals.
On 20 June, my hon. Friend the Minister of State spelt out the importance of human rights at the investment conference to which my hon. Friend referred. I hope that she accepts that we want Saudi Arabia to ratify the United Nations conventions and we welcome the efforts to bring its law into line with them; but Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country in which justice is based on Sharia law, which has a major bearing on rights in the kingdom. Of course, we must have a dialogue on human rights—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. I regret to tell the Minister that time is up and we must move to the next debate.

Parades Commission
1 pm
Mr. William Thompson: I welcome this opportunity to debate the second report of the Parades Commission. The Minister will recall that the commission was set up following troubles with various parades in Northern Ireland. Parades had previously been a public order matter, and the responsibility of the Chief Constable.
Those of us from Northern Ireland vigorously opposed the Bill setting up the so-called independent commission. The policing of parades is a public order and operational matter for the police; they should take the decisions because they are the people on the ground, who know the local situation.
We objected to the fact that the Parades Commission was a quango—an unelected body not answerable to the people of Northern Ireland. It consisted of people who, in many cases, did not know the facts and were unfamiliar with the situation on the ground.
The fundamental issue relating to the Parades Commission is the right to freedom of expression. That right has been described in many cases in the European Court, which states:
As the Court has consistently held, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of everyone. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive, or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broad mindedness without which there is no "democratic society".
Thus, provided that they act and march peaceably, the Orange Institution and the loyal orders have the right under British and European law to march the highway without let or hindrance.
When the commission was set up, we argued that instead of making the situation better, it would make it worse, and the facts confirm that. Last year's report stated that 132 parades were contested, and as a result, 119 route restrictions were placed on those parades. This year's report shows that the situation is worse. A total of 297 parades were contested and route conditions were imposed on 152 of them. It is therefore obvious that the commission is making the situation worse. There are more contested parades, and more determinations are changing the routes. Those are indisputable facts.
Last year's report at least gave the impression that two sides were involved in the disputes, because it contained a picture of Garvaghy road, on which many flags of a foreign state were flying, as usual. It also contained a photograph that, from the pictures and banners shown, appeared to be of a nationalist march. However, it is difficult to find any pictures of a nationalist march in this year's report. That gives the impression, which we have always contended, that the commission is more interested in curtailing Orange and loyalist marches than nationalist marches. Although, as I have said, it is difficult to find a picture of a nationalist march, I do concede that one is included. I can determine that it is a nationalist or Ancient Order of Hibernians march only because a well-known Member
94WH
of the Northern Ireland Assembly is shown objecting to it. The Parades Commission should be more circumspect with its photographs and show that there are two sides to the dispute, not one.
On publishing its annual report, the Parades Commission issued a statement, which makes clear what it considers to be important. It said:
Finally, we are keen, above all, to promote genuine engagement between parades organisers and those affected by parades. We attach real weight to evidence that people have sought to address the legitimate concerns of others and to accommodate those concerns where it is within their power to do so.
In other words, the Parades Commission attaches great weight to liaison between those who organise parades and those who oppose parades. It attaches such great weight that it has often changed the route of a parade because its organisers had not reached some accommodation with the protesters.
If one has a right, one should not have to seek permission from someone else to exercise it. One should not be prevented from exercising that right because someone has refused to agree with the exercising of that right. That is a fundamental issue.
I shall now deal with some of the Parades Commission's determinations, starting with that relating to Newtownbutler. The commission said:
We note that this is a traditional evening church parade, and that it will not of itself bring about undue disruption in Newtownbutler. We recognise also that the route which the organiser has notified represents a curtailment of a past route, and that the parade proposes to proceed direct from the Orange Hall to the church.
That is a small distance. The commission continues:
However, it is clear that the organiser of this parade continues not to take account of the Commission's consistent message in relation to the parades issue in Newtownbutler. The continuing refusal to come to an agreed form of engagement with the residents' representatives ensures that there can be no possibility of addressing the issue, or resolving it…It is also clear to us that the unchanged position of the loyal orders may place considerable strain on the acceptance by residents, in principle, of the right to parade in Newtownbutler. We therefore consider that for this parade to proceed on both its outward and return routes would have an adverse impact on local community relations.
One must question what is meant by a parade placing
considerable strain on the acceptance by residents, in principle, of the right to parade in Newtownbutler.
If the parade has the right to proceed along the route, it makes little difference whether the residents accept that right in principle: it should retain the right to proceed. However, because those who wish to march did not follow the behest of the commission and enter into dialogue with the residents' group, they will be penalised. They may march to the church, which is a short distance, but they may not march back. That is ridiculous, and shows that members of the commission want to impose their views on the loyal institutions.
I turn now to a Parades Commission determination that relates to a parade in the village of Mountfield, which is in my constituency. The commission states:
We have noted that this is a small traditional annual church parade, comprising 70 people and one pipe band. Previous parades have been conducted in an orderly manner, and the parade in itself would cause minimal disruption to the life of the community.
In issuing a decision in respect of this parade last year, we understood that organisers had expressed a willingness to consider how aspects of the parade which are perceived by some residents

95WH
as problematic might be addressed. We considered that such a willingness represented a significant expression of respect on behalf of the parade organisers and we took this into account when assessing the impact of the parade on relationships within the community. However, we have been informed that no efforts have been made by parade organisers in the interim period to address these concerns. In the absence of any form of dialogue which might address the perceived problems we do not see how a parade as notified could proceed at this time without having a detrimental impact on relationships within the community.
Again, the Parades Commission has used the phrase
a detrimental impact on relationships within the community
If people have the right to march peaceably, it makes no difference what the community thinks.
I know Mountfield well. When the Parades Commission banned the parade in 1998, it took 150 policemen to enforce the ban. Last year, it allowed the parade to go ahead—as it should—and only 12 policemen were needed to police it. This year, the parade was re-routed again, and 130 policemen were needed to enforce the ban. How ridiculous can a situation get? In fact, the police are more adept than the Parades Commission, and we were allowed to march up the footpath, because there is apparently no law to prevent anyone from doing so. The Orangemen consequently got to their church service and returned happily, without any problem.
In the case of the parade at Parkmount Junior Orange Lodge in Portadown, the Parades Commission stated:
We note that this is a very small parade, comprised principally of children and young people accompanied by their parents. The parade has taken place along the notified route for many years, and organisers and parade participants have complied fully with the Code of Conduct. We are aware that there have been considerable disturbances at the parade over the past two years, and are advised that there is the possibility of public disorder irrespective of our decision.
The Parades Commission should be more honest and tell us where the disturbance at that parade is likely to come from. It will not be from the parade, but from those who do not like the parade and who wish, by breaking the law and creating a public disturbance, to get the Parades Commission to stop it. Any action taken should be directed towards those who act against the parade rather than the parade itself. Happily, on that occasion, the Parades Commission allowed the parade to go ahead, having asked its organisers
to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the parade disperses no later than 5.30 pm.
Another decision taken by the Parades Commission relates to the Altnaveigh LOL 37 parade in Newry, and states:
The Commission notes that the purpose of this parade, following a religious service, is to dedicate a new banner, and as such is not a traditional parade. The parade is scheduled to begin between 8.30 pm and 9 pm and to last for a maximum of one hour. As the parade occurs on an evening when there is late night shopping in Newry there will be a level of disruption to the life of the community. We are informed however that the parade organisers will co-operate with police to ensure that this disruption is kept to the minimum extent possible. The Commission is aware that there is no record of disorder or damage having been caused by participants in this parade. There are however significant sensitivities about loyal order parades in Newry, a largely nationalist town. While we note that the Newry community have generally shown a greater tolerance of church parades than for other loyal order parades, there remains a significant degree of opposition to parades in the locality…The
96WH
Commission does not feel that this parade could take place at this time along the entire notified route without having a detrimental impact on relationships within the community.
The commission therefore placed a condition on the parade that it should not proceed along a certain part of the route, despite the fact that there was no likelihood of any trouble being caused by the parade.
I turn now to the decisions relating to the most important areas, in terms of trouble at parades. I shall refer particularly to the Ormeau road, where there has been a great deal of trouble, and which has been in the news constantly. The decision made in relation to the Belfast Walker Club Apprentice Boys of Derry parade stated:
The Commission has noted that this is a traditional parade held by the Belfast Walker Club of the Apprentice Boys of Derry…prior to their departure to the Annual Easter Monday Apprentice Boys of Derry Parade, due to be held this year in Tobermore. The Commission notes that this is a small parade, comprising 50 participants including one band, and that the outward journey is scheduled to leave Ballynafeigh Orange Hall at 8.15 am, proceeding by way of Ormeau Road, Donegall Pass, Charlotte Street, Lindsey Street, Maryville Street and Ormeau Avenue to Linenhall Street. The return journey is notified to proceed from Dunnes Store at Annadale Embankment at 6.30 pm via the Ormeau Road to return to Ballynafeigh Orange Hall…The Commission has set out its position in relation to loyal order parades along the Ormeau Road in its document—"Lower Ormeau Road"…In the Commission's determination in relation to the parade notified by the Belfast Walker Club along the Lower Ormeau Road on Saturday 14 August 1999, the Commission noted the evidence it had received of meetings between the representatives of Belfast Walker Club ABOD and the Lower Ormeau Concerned Community (LOCC) between 10 May 1999 and 20 July 1999. The Commission noted the stated willingness of the Belfast Walker Club ABOD representatives to address the legitimate concerns of the residents of the lower Ormeau community, where they were able to do so. The Commission further noted undertakings made by the Belfast Walker Club, both with regard to the parade notified to take place on 14 August 1999, and, notably, to a winter programme of dialogue with residents, regardless of the decision reached by the Commission regarding the 14 August 1999 parade. While the Commission regretted that a mutually acceptable solution had not been possible, it was satisfied that the direct dialogue that had been entered into represented "substantive, sustained and genuine engagement". With conditions imposed to ensure, so far as possible, that the parade could be carried out in a peaceful and dignified manner, the Commission decided not to impose route conditions. The event did not pass off peacefully and there were scenes of violence. We note that the parade was conducted with dignity and that it was the unlawful actions of persons sitting on the road so as to block the passage of the parade that caused the intervention of the police. We would add that unlawful protest effectively and on that occasion, dramatically, detracts from any engagement that has been entered into by the party engaged in that unlawful protest.
The determination continues
We, as members of the recently appointed Parades Commission, have read further minutes detailing a series of meetings between the Belfast Walker Club ABOD and the Lower Ormeau Concerned Community on 5 August 1999. 16 September 1999, 25 October 1999, 19 November 1999, 24 January 2000, 8 February 2000, 28 February 2000, and 14 March 2000. In addition we have read the previous minutes and papers relating to the earlier meetings. We acknowledge that our decision on the August parade was a difficult one for the LOCC, and while particularly disappointed with the events which ensued on the day of the parade, we are pleased that the talks between the two parties resumed again in September.
It goes on to state:
We have spoken to representatives of both the Belfast Walker Club ABOD and the LOCC, as well as other interested parties, including elected representatives, about the parade notified on

97WH
Monday 24 April 2000. From the evidence available to us it is clear that there is no room for optimism that any agreed solution may be imminent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) is presenting a very detailed case, and we respect that. However, a half-hour Adjournment debate is supposed to allow for a full ministerial response, and there are only eight minutes left.
Mr. Thompson: I am conscious of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I am rushing as fast as I can to get finished.
The determination concludes:
In the absence of local agreement, and following consultation with the police, we are aware of the very real danger of serious public disorder should the parade proceed as notified. While disruption to the life of the community would be minimal in terms of the timing and size of the parade, there would be a negative impact on relationships within the whole community.
That parade was banned. The commission realised that the residents had put in for two parades, which, it said, was to stop this legitimate parade.
The determinations show that the Parades Commission is acting unreasonably in many ways, and is doing more harm than good. I await the Minister's reply to see what he proposes to do about that.
1.23 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) for the opportunity to comment on the work of the Parades Commission in its second year as a statutory body. It would be appropriate for me to begin by commenting on events since last Sunday, which emanate from a determination of the Parades Commission.
Since the Drumcree parade on 2 July, we have seen disgraceful scenes both in Portadown, and more widely throughout Northern Ireland, in defiance of the lawful rulings of the Parades Commission. That violence could easily have led to death and serious injury. Blast bombs have been found and used, acid has been thrown at police, vehicles hijacked and acts of sectarian intimidation carried out. The police and the Army are well prepared for that sort of violence, which is, regrettably, familiar from previous years.
If the rioters believe that their actions will bring about a change in the determination of the Parades Commission or the Government, they are very much mistaken. The Secretary of State has made it clear that we will not be bullied into a change of course by such thuggery. The violence should stop now before it descends into an even worse climate of public disorder.
I turn to the substance of our debate, although I doubt whether I shall cover all the issues raised—
Mr. Thompson: I endorse all the Minister's comments on violence. We do not want any violence in Northern Ireland—we want peaceful parades. I hope that people
98WH
will eventually accept that and that there will be tolerance in Northern Ireland. I condemn any violence, from whatever source.
Mr. Ingram: I gave way because I thought that the hon. Gentleman would respond in that way.
The hon. Gentleman and I were perhaps never likely to agree on the commission's merits and role, about which we have argued time and again. I express the Government's support for the commission and the way in which it set out to deal with the fundamental issues that were so comprehensively analysed in the North report, which gave birth to the commission.
When the North report was published in January 1997, decisions about parades and marches rested with the Chief Constable and were based on the provisions of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. The North report agreed that it was inappropriate to focus solely on the public order consequences of parades. It took that view because it argued that doing so ignored the right to peaceful assembly, the rights of those in the areas through which parades passed and the rights of the wider community. Moreover, the report considered that it was undesirable for the police to be seen to decide whether conditions should be imposed and to enforce them. Accordingly, it set out the case for an independent body that would take views from interested parties, encourage local agreement and, where that was not forthcoming, come to a view on what, if any, conditions should be imposed on what are called contentious parades. Furthermore, it would base its decisions on a broader range of factors than was previously the case, including the impact of a parade on relationships within the community, in addition to its impact on public order and the likely disruption. In one of their earliest actions in Northern Ireland, the Government legislated for the conclusions reached by the North report.
The Parades Commission is taking forward the objectives that were so clearly identified in the North report. It is doing so on the basis that determinations are a last resort, and should be made only when local agreement has not been possible. The Parades Commission takes all such factors into account when it responds to parades and marches—that matter was discussed by the hon. Member for West Tyrone.
When the commission makes a determination, it has to balance a complex series of conflicting rights. It recognises the right to march, and the competing rights of others. In a democratic society, rights are not absolute when they collide. The hon. Gentleman read out details from a European judgment. I shall write to him explaining my response to the issues that he raised.
As the North report observes, events surrounding parade disputes, such as those in Portadown, continue to dominate the public's awareness of parades. That inevitably colours the public's perception of the commission and its role. However, the report, and the previous year's report, show that the number of parades on which route restrictions had to be imposed represented a tiny proportion of those that were notified. The hon. Gentleman said that there were 132 cases last year and 152 this year. It is interesting to note that 52 of this year's 152 cases involved marches and parades in the Portadown area. He said that the Parades Commission had made the situation worse. The

99WH
absolute number of parades that the commission has had to consider overall was 3,198 last year and 3,403 this year. There was a substantial increase in the total number of parades over which it has had to give a determination.
The Commission does not underestimate—indeed, it understands only too well—the difficulties that are inherent in dealing with the parade from Drumcree church down the Garvaghy road. That understanding is reflected in its determination on the parade notified by the Portadown district Loyal Orange Lodge No. 1 for this coming Sunday, 9 July. In its own way, the
100WH
commission is addressing both sides of the debate. It continues in its efforts to find an equitable resolution of the Drumcree situation and it contributes to the increasing stability of relationships elsewhere in the Province.
The hon. Member for West Tyrone recited a whole range of parades over which he said that there could be a debate about how they were dealt with. He did not refer in detail to the Drumcree—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must stop the Minister because time is up and we must move on to the next debate.

Asylum Seekers (Inner London)
1.30 pm
Mr. Iain Coleman: The central point that I want to bring to the Government's attention today is narrow, but vital to inner London boroughs. Before doing so, I want to make clear the climate in which we are operating.
The issue of asylum seekers and the way in which the Government have tried to deal with the backlog of applications have caused considerable controversy in recent times. This sensitive area of policy has been subject to disgraceful and dangerous propaganda by some newspapers and by some of the tactics employed by the Opposition. A proportionally large number of asylum seekers have settled in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and I am aware from my contact with many of them that the majority have been through deeply scarring and traumatic experiences. I do not have time today to detail the brutalising and often horrific treatment to which many of them have been subjected, but I believe that the majority that I have seen are genuine asylum seekers who have a right to expect to be treated fairly and with the proper dignity that is enshrined in the 1951 convention to which our country is a signatory.
I regret to say that some of the measures in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 are unnecessarily harsh and reactionary and caused considerable disappointment and even shock to many supporters of our Government. In particular, the decision to operate a stigmatising and inefficient voucher system, which is expensive to administer and open to fraud was a serious policy mistake. The level at which support for such vulnerable people has been set is unacceptably low and many of my constituents who are seeking asylum are suffering as a consequence, especially many of the innocent young children who have been caught up in the system. I want to make it clear that I dissociate myself from the language of the Opposition and much of our national press who have covered the matter so hysterically and dangerously.
The central issue that I want to raise is the fact that clear evidence demonstrates that a number of local authorities have not secured full funding from the Government for the care of asylum seekers. I shall demonstrate that with evidence gleaned largely from my constituency, although I am aware of a similar pattern of underfunding in other inner London boroughs.
On 2 June this year, the Audit Commission published a report that was concerned principally with the dispersal arrangements and the impact on asylum seekers and the areas receiving them. A careful analysis of the report clearly supports the case in some instances for additional funding over the current maximum available grant. Page 16 of the report states:
Local Authorities that have been unable to support Asylum Seekers with current grant thresholds will continue to subsidise this expenditure from their General Revenue Budget, as Authorities will not have made provision for this in their 2000/2001 budget since they expected this duty to be passed on to the national Asylum Support Service from Aril 2000.
That is beyond doubt.
Page 82 of the report refers to the immense pressure on local authorities and the importance of ensuring that the funding regime for asylum seekers meets the
102WH
reasonable costs of key local services. In Hammersmith and Fulham, the average cost of supporting asylum seekers with children for the previous financial year was £370 a week. The maximum grant available is currently £240 a week. The council has been supporting an average of 500 such families a week, leaving a shortfall of £130 a week for each family. A simple mathematical calculation shows that that leaves an overall bill above the grant available from central Government to my local authority of approximately £3.25 million a year—just for social services. Page 85 of the report refers to the variable costs of different local authorities. Average accommodation costs in Hammersmith and Fulham are £230 a week and with subsistence costs the figure ranges between £350 and £380 a week per family.
The Government have correctly and justifiably asked why the costs in Hammersmith and Fulham, and other inner-London boroughs such as Camden, Wandsworth and Westminster, are significantly higher than those in other areas of the country. There are several reasons. First—and crucially—the boroughs in question easily have the highest accommodation costs in the UK, if not the whole of Europe. They have a high number of asylum seekers and the uncertainty about the legislative position and Home Office policy on asylum seekers means that it has been very difficult to forward plan strategically. Another factor that places great pressure on Hammersmith and Fulham, which has made it difficult to place families in potentially cheaper boroughs or in immediately neighbouring boroughs, are families who, as port-of-entry applicants, were initially accepted as a housing responsibility but who were transferred to the responsibility of social services.
The regulations published by the Government made it clear—regrettably in my judgment—that councils should entirely disregard choice of placement, but other regulations require the councils to take into account the welfare of the families concerned. I know many families in my constituency who have been in their accommodation for well over 12 months. There is clear legal advice, which councils are bound to consider, that the longer the family has been in a particular area, with the children in a particular school, the more inevitably powerful are the arguments, on welfare and compassionate grounds, for not moving them to another area.
The uncertainty about the strategy for supporting asylum seekers has undeniably led to other problems, particularly in such areas as Hammersmith and Fulham and Westminster, where temporary accommodation of any kind is at a premium. Potential providers of block accommodation sought long-term contracts that the council was unable to negotiate because of uncertainty about how long its duty would last.
What reason have the Government given for failing to pay the bills submitted by local authorities that have exceeded the set expenditure maximum? The one possibly hopeful reference for the Government in the Audit Commission report is at paragraph 88, which states that
service provision for asylum seekers should be subject to the same value for money scrutiny as other services.
I agree with that. However, the Government have been paying £300 a week or more per family for accommodation in Glasgow. The costs in

103WH
Hammersmith and Fulham have been the subject of both internal and external audit, although the Government have not said, as far as I am aware, that the costs are bogus; they accept that they were genuinely incurred in supporting asylum seekers and their families. The last annual district auditors management letter in Hammersmith and Fulham was entirely positive and particularly praised the authority's sound financial management. The district auditor said that
the council continues to adopt a financially prudent approach to the management of its affairs. The authority secures tight control to keep within spending limits and demonstrates effective arrangements for ensuring value for money.
There is no question of irresponsible or lavish spending occurring and no hint of the figures having been massaged. The council has not hesitated to open up its books for close and careful scrutiny. Indeed, it has said that it would welcome an inspection of its expenditure. The Audit Commission report, if read comprehensively, strongly supports the inner-London boroughs' case for additional funding.
My concerns are twofold. First, central Government must clearly take responsibility for support for asylum seekers. It is central Government who set down the rules governing the support mechanisms that local authorities have been allowed to use. The aggregate of external finance in my borough has been set to increase by just 1.5 per cent. in the current financial year. Over £16 million of cuts, in a budget of less than £200 million, have been made in just five years. There is little or no scope for use of balances, which stand at less than £2 million. If the council is now obliged to cut services to the local community yet further, or to raise the council tax significantly, local people will not understand why the situation has been allowed to arise. I plead with the Government to think again about the extra costs incurred by the inner-London boroughs.
The Association of London Government has calculated that the expenditure incurred by the boroughs in question above the grant level last year was £27 million. In inner London, authorities have worked hard to provide a quality service within the boundaries set out by central Government, and they believe that they have been financially penalised for seriously tackling the brief that the Government gave them. In other areas, no such financial penalty has applied when local authorities have been less willing and less enthusiastic to carry out their duty. The inner-London boroughs hold the view that he who provides least and complains most has been treated best. That cannot be right.
The effect of the shortfall could be serious for the financial position of some local authorities affected, including my own. The chair of the Association of London Government, Councillor Robin Wales, has pointed out that the current levels of grant do not reflect the actual cost to the borough. The London boroughs currently support 63,000 destitute asylum seekers. That is a difficult job, and it has been made more so by the underfunding that I have sought to highlight. I urge the Government to consider the issue again, and pay in full the real and actual costs incurred to all the local authorities that now find themselves out of pocket to such a large amount, through no fault of their own.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): Order. Two hon. Members have said that the initiator of the
104WH
debate has given them permission to speak, and that they have notified the Minister of that. I shall be happy to call them both if they will be extremely brief, but I want an opportunity for the Minister to reply in full to this important debate.
1.41 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my hon. Friends the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) and the Minister for giving me a few moments to contribute to the debate. I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham about the general aspects of asylum-seeker policy. I was and remain unhappy about many aspects of the operation of asylum legislation.
I differ from my hon. Friend in one respect, in that I support the general principle of a dispersal programme. I believe that a national solution is necessary, given the numbers of people seeking asylum. Like him, I represent an area with a large number of asylum seekers, many of whom are highly traumatised individuals with tragic histories. My experience is of victims of torture, families torn apart by war and shattered lives.
I congratulate the Government on having made progress on meeting the cost and policy issues connected with asylum seekers since 1997. Progress was made immediately after the election in dealing with the shortfall of costs bequeathed to us by the disastrous Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. For the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend, several inner-London authorities still carry a significant shortfall.
I shall give figures for the two boroughs that I represent in part. The total net expenditure after Government grant borne by the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea in 1999–2000 was £1,493,000 in direct costs of housing and supporting asylum seekers, and an additional £1.7 million in indirect costs. Those costs are recognised by the Government as being spent on matters such as the assessment and the administration of asylum applicants. The royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea is, unfortunately, excluded from the otherwise extremely welcome grant from the Department of Health for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That has left it with an additional shortfall of £593,000.
In the London borough of Westminster, the net cost to social services was £4.6 million in 1999–2000 for adults and families, and £4.3 million for asylum seekers for whom the council had a housing duty. The 2000–01 estimates offer a £6 million and £3.9 million shortfall respectively, assuming that the National Asylum Support Service takes over responsibilities for new adult and family applicants in the near future.
As my hon. Friend explained, the inner-London boroughs are now in competition with the National Asylum Support Service for accommodation. That has been intensified by the extreme shortage of temporary accommodation in the capital. Boroughs cannot negotiate long-term contracts for temporary accommodation as the National Asylum Support Service can, and that has added dramatically to their costs. The inner-London boroughs cannot sustain the costs of running void properties, which has made it extremely difficult for them to achieve the cost savings

105WH
available to NASS. That helps to explain why the unit costs are so much higher for those London authorities than for others.
I have not always seen eye to eye with Westminster city council about asylum seekers, just as I have not on virtually every other policy. However, the council, along with the other London boroughs and the Association of London Government has been supportive of the Government's dispersal strategy. Politicians there have responded to the issue in a commendably restrained manner, given the intense pressure on their finances and services.
I do not believe that either of the local authority areas that I partially represent, both of which are controlled by the Conservative party, are relaxed in principle about the costs that they have to bear and the provision that they must make for asylum seekers. They and other London authorities are struggling to find reasonable quality accommodation and support services at a reasonable cost, and should be fully remunerated for doing so.
1.46 pm
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I endorse much that has been said during the debate. I was formerly a member of Westminster city council, and served on the housing committee. I saw the problem in the light of the dilemma not only over the increase in asylum seekers, but over homelessness in general. People would focus on Westminster and the central boroughs and refuse to move across the river to places such as Peckham, where accommodation was available. I should like the Minister to deal with that in her response. Reserve powers are there to require the regions and even outer London boroughs to offer accommodation, which is in short supply, because very few regions have taken up the opportunity to contribute a solution to the problem. The Minister might also comment on the possibility that we could require asylum seekers to move to outer London boroughs and the regions.
I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). The National Asylum Support Service is competing with inner-London boroughs in attempts to persuade outer areas such as Glasgow to take asylum seekers. The Government programme allows contracts of several years to be offered in those areas, whereas boroughs such as Westminster cannot countenance that owing to their budgetary system and because they cannot afford to pay for voids, which are inevitable when a contract is taken out for three to five years.
The housing problem is not simply an asylum-seeker issue. Persuading homeless people or seekers of public help with housing to go even as far as across the river, where there is often spare accommodation, has always been a problem.
1.48 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) on raising this issue. He is right to say that it is an important
106WH
matter, and I will do my best to address the issues that he and other hon. Members have addressed during the debate.
I understand my hon. Friend's interest in these matters, and I know that he showed considerable interest when the legislation was passing through the House. He has some experience in these matters, and will know that I also represent a London constituency with high numbers of people seeking asylum.
The Government have a clear policy. We are committed to honouring our obligations under the 1951 convention, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham referred. We seek to ensure that, when people have a genuine claim under that convention, we recognise that claim as quickly as we can and give them the full package of refugee integration. However, we have a policy to deal as quickly as possible with people who make unfounded claims.
When the Government took office we faced a chaotic situation. That was due solely to the previous Government's removal of access to cash benefits for one category of asylum seekers—those who had applied for asylum in-country—without making any provision for their support pending the outcome of their asylum claim. Subsequent court cases determined that local authorities were responsible for those people. Given the pattern of asylum claims, the main share of the responsibility fell to local authorities in London and the south-east. Of course, the situation was not helped by people claiming asylum at the port, who still had access to cash benefits but could only turn to local authorities for help with housing. That exacerbated the problem.
At an early stage, the Government determined that that could not continue. As hon. Members will know, we devised a national asylum support scheme that would lead to the transfer of responsibility for the support of destitute asylum seekers from local to central government. As the scheme rolls out—it started on 3 April—we will gradually help with and remove the immediate responsibilities on local authorities for supporting new asylum seekers. Local authorities in London recognise that those measures will help them.
Of course, the question remains about the role of central Government, and what more they can do to help local government with the costs of supporting asylum seekers. Local authorities in London have done good work generally, and dedicated council officials have played their part. NASS works closely with local authorities, up and down the country, to ensure that dispersal away from London and the south-east is a reality, and that it provides an appropriate environment for asylum seekers.
I am pleased to say that more than 3,000 asylum seekers and their dependants who rely on the National Asylum Support Service have been dispersed outside London and the south-east. That is in addition to those whom local authorities were able to disperse under the voluntary scheme introduced in advance of the new provisions. I am not just talking about the ad hoc dispersal by local authorities—the figure of 3,000 is in addition to those dispersed under the voluntary arrangements that started on 6 December under the new legislation. I thank all those involved in the voluntary scheme, in which local government played its part. The

107WH
reception of asylum seekers in the dispersed areas has involved a combination of work by the Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector.
All those measures, and the success of NASS so far, will bring welcome relief for local authorities in London and the south-east. Many local authorities will still accommodate asylum seekers who secured support prior to the introduction of the new scheme. In those cases, reimbursement will continue to be provided through grant aid. I cannot yet give details of this year's grant arrangements, which we are still in the process of finalising. The National Asylum Support Service currently applies to all new port asylum applicants and in-country applicants in Kent, and will shortly be extended to other in-country applicants. That will mean that there will soon be additional relief for local authorities as they will no longer have the job of providing housing to new claimants on a case-by-case basis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham rightly concentrated on the costs incurred by his authority. The whole picture for London boroughs, based on last year's grant claims, is surprisingly varied. The figures are still subject to audit adjustments, but the wide range of costs that they reveal is interesting. Some boroughs have significant difficulty living within the unit costs. For example, Hammersmith and Fulham spent nearly £13 million on asylum-seeker support in 1999–2000, but only £10 million of that was recoverable under the weekly cost limits of the grant regime. That placed the borough second in the league of support cost shortfalls behind Westminster, which recovered £10 million from a total spend of £15 million. Five London boroughs, including Hammersmith and Fulham, and Westminster, accounted for more than half the London unreimbursed costs, but only a fifth of the total support costs for London. While some boroughs had difficulty living within the grant limits, seven London boroughs had their costs fully reimbursed, and that included two of the top five spenders on asylum support, Newham and Lambeth.
Hammersmith and Fulham's weekly unit costs were £144 for adult singles and £367 for families compared with the weekly grant levels of £140 and £240. At the
108WH
other end of the cost spectrum, nearly half the London boroughs were able to support adult asylum seekers for £140 per week or less and, in some cases, weekly costs were well under £100. Thirteen London boroughs could support families for £240 or less. The picture is complex.
Given that many of the boroughs, including Hammersmith and Fulham, and Westminster, are dispersing asylum seekers out of their areas, it is difficult to understand why there is such a great variation. We have asked the Audit Commission to look further into cost variations between local authorities to see if any lessons can be learnt on ways in which to reduce them.
When we can announce it, I hope that the extension of NASS to cover in-country London cases will ease the pressure on authorities such as those that we have heard about today. We are taking the matter seriously, which is why we are investing resources in setting up a system that removes the responsibility from a few and coordinates a national approach to meeting our international and humanitarian obligations, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) referred.
We are not in a position in which the unfair share of the responsibility should fall on just a few boroughs. Along with all other European Union member states, we are facing a national problem, which demands a national solution. We are moving on from the mess created by the previous Administration. It has taken us time to do so, not least because we have had to introduce a major piece of legislation. We have set up the National Asylum Support Service and entered into contracts for the provision of a national voucher scheme, accommodation around the United Kingdom and provision of other support services. That was a major undertaking. We have engaged people from all sectors in meeting this challenge.
It is time that we recognised the enormous strides that have been made in the past 18 months. I certainly look forward to the benefits that will result from better management and co-ordination. We want to make sure that those whose asylum claims are being processed are treated with respect and dignity during that period.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for(a) Great Britain and (b) each local authority the percentage of waste recycled in (i) 1997 (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [127207]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 23 June 2000]: Recycling levels in Scotland are a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. For England and Wales the national household recycling rates for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 were 7.5, 8.2 and 9.4 per cent. respectively. I have placed a list in the House of Commons Library setting out ranges of household recycling rates for local authorities in England and Wales. All figures are based on data from the annual DETR Municipal Waste Survey.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the outcome was of the Transport Council held in Luxembourg on 26 and 27 June; and if he will make a statement. [128333]

  Mr. Hill
  The Transport Council met in Luxembourg on 26 June. I represented the United Kingdom.

  At the opening of the Council, the Netherlands made a statement expressing regret at the recent incident at Dover and stressed the need for EU action on traffic in human beings. I welcomed and endorsed the Dutch statement.

  The Council debated a draft directive on interoperability of the conventional rail network. The only outstanding issue was the UK and Spain's request that derogations to allow the retention of existing track or loading gauges would be automatic rather than requiring Commission approval. I am pleased to say that, following the debate, a revised text was agreed which allows the automatic derogation we had been seeking and enabled the Council to agree a common position.

  The Council debated proposals arising from the loss of the oil tanker "Erika" (the 'Erika 1' package). These are revised directives on ship inspection organisations and on port state control of shipping; and a new regulation on accelerating the introduction of double hulls in oil tankers. The Council reached political agreement on the first of these, which would give the Commission responsibility for recognising member states' appointed ship inspection organisations. The Commission gave a progress report on the port state control proposal. There was a debate on double-hulled tankers, during which I noted the need for a proper economic and regulatory impact assessment. I agreed with the Commission and a number of member
  180W
  states that IMO action at global level would be preferable, but that otherwise EU legislation would be acceptable. These issues will be debated again at the October Council. The Council agreed conclusions, stating that further progress should be made towards the "Erika 2" package, foreseen at the Feira European Council. France stated that Erika 2 would be a priority of its Presidency.

  There was a further progress report from the Commission on the Galileo satellite navigation project. The Commission said it would submit a final report on the definition phase and an economic analysis in time for the December Council, at which a final decision would have to be made on whether to go ahead with the project. At the October Council, there would be an orientation debate on structure and funding. I joined other member states in stressing the need for full cost benefit analysis and for private sector funding to make the project viable. Conclusions were agreed, urging that the Council be provided with sufficient information early in the autumn to allow it to take a decision on Galileo's future.

  The Commission gave a further presentation of its Communication on air passenger rights, underlining the need for progress with legislation or voluntary action in various areas of passenger protection, including the setting of minimum contract requirements for ticket purchase. Further work will be done to prepare for a discussion at the October Council.

  The Commission gave its view of progress on work to create common EU structures for air traffic management (ATM). This might include the establishment of bodies to regulate European ATM. The Commission noted that separation of provision and regulation of ATM services was vital, to implement the conclusions of the European Councils at Lisbon and Feira.

  The Council agreed that the Commission proposals on cabin crew qualifications in civil aviation should be re-examined in the light of the recent proposal to transpose standards drawn up by the Joint Aviation Authorities into Community law.

  The Presidency presented a paper describing recent discussions on the establishment of a European aviation safety authority (EASA). The point at issue is whether the Commission should work up detailed proposals for an EU agency, rather than an international organisation. The Presidency presented a paper which analysed whether an EU agency could effectively promote air safety across Europe. I said that the UK was open to the idea of an EU agency, but that such an agency would have to have sufficient power to take safety decisions effectively, involve member states and national safety regulators fully in its work, and involve non-EU states as fully as possible. It should not initially cover safety of airports or air traffic management. The Council invited the Commission to make a formal proposal for an EU agency.

  The Council also discussed the Transatlantic Common Aviation Area (TCAA). The Commission is seeking a mandate allowing it to negotiate a TCAA agreement with the US on behalf of the EU. The UK has on previous occasions made clear that it gives priority to its bilateral negotiations with the US, which are continuing. Technical work on the likely shape of a Commission mandate has been taking place, and the UK has been participating in that. The Presidency concluded that the Council was

  181W
  satisfied with the technical work, and asked for further work to be done by COREPER, to allow a decision on the mandate to be taken in December.

  The Commission reported on developments in the area of aviation noise standards. They noted the good progress in defining new standards within the ICAO CAEP process.

  The Council agreed a wide-ranging Resolution on road safety, following the Commission Communication presented to the March Council. Among areas identified for legislative action are: further development of the European new vehicles crash testing programme (EuroNCAP), use of speed limiters on larger vehicles, higher levels of seatbelt and child restraint usage, safer car fronts, and targeting of accident blackspots. The Resolution also refers to the Commission's intention to bring forward a recommendation for member states to introduce a maximum blood alcohol level of 0.5 milligrams per millilitre.

  Two road transport issues were debated: a proposed Regulation on transit quotas ("ecopoints") for lorries passing through Austria; and a proposal on the allocation of Swiss transit permits for heavy lorries. The former concerns a proposal to reduce the ecopoint quotas of five member states, a legal requirement under the terms of Austria's Act of Accession. The member states affected (which do not include the UK) expressed their opposition to this measure and the Presidency instructed COREPER to re-examine the proposal. The Commission noted that unless an alternative proposal emerges, and is agreed upon, the Commission regulation will automatically come into effect on 20 September. The Commission also introduced its amended proposal for the distribution of permits for heavy goods vehicles travelling in Switzerland. The permit allocations for individual member states were in the process of being revised in the light of recently completed analyses of trade and traffic statistics in the Alpine region. The Presidency asked for further work to be done by COREPER to prepare for decision at the October Council.

  Under other business the Commission presented its new "Communication on safer and more competitive quality road transport in the Community", covering such issues as working and driving time for lorry drivers, conditions for employment of non-EU hauliers, and driver training. This will be a priority issue for debate during the French presidency.

  Vehicle Speeds
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the national transport plan and local transport plans will give priority to slower speeds for vehicular traffic on roads where the risk of injury to other road users is significant. [128547]

  Mr. Hill
  Our guidance on local transport plans makes clear that authorities should ensure that safety is a key element in all aspects of their plan. Authorities are required to prepare a road safety strategy, which must contain local casualty reduction targets for 2005 and annual milestone targets. While the precise package of measures used to achieve these targets is a matter for 182W
  individual authorities, we would expect to see many making use of traffic management measures and lower speed limits.

  PSV Provisional Licences
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the average processing time is for PSV provisional driver licences; and if he will make a statement. [128448]

  Mr. Hill
  Since April the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has processed 95 per cent. of PSV provisional driving licences within five working days of receipt. Allowing three days for delivery of the licence by Royal Mail this means the overall turnaround is eight days from the date of receipt. This is an improvement on last year's turnaround, which was nine days overall.

  Beacon Councils
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much money his Department has awarded to(a) Stockport MBC and (b) Tameside MBC to celebrate beacon status; and what guidance he has issued on how the money is to be spent. [128879]

  Ms Armstrong
  This year we are providing £700,000 for beacon councils. Subject to approval by the House of the Special Grant Report (number 64) which was laid on 27 June, this amount will be distributed as specified in the report among the 33 successful applicants for beacon status, including Stockport and Tameside, as a contribution to the costs they incur as beacons in disseminating their good practice.

  Guidance on the special grant was contained in the Beacon Council Application Brochure published in May 1999, and in the draft Special Grant Report circulated to each of the beacon councils earlier this year.

  Brownfield Development
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of planning decisions made in the last year resulted in brownfield development. [128634]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of planning decisions resulting in development on brownfield sites is not available centrally. However, the latest estimates show that, in 1994, 48 per cent. of land changing to urban uses (as defined for DETR's Land Use Change Statistics) was previously developed.

  London Underground
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 June 2000,Official Report, column 6W, concerning the provisions of European Community treaties affecting the expenditure of London Underground, what communications he, or his predecessors, have received from the Commission of the European Communities, (a) based on Article 88 of the Treaty of European Union and (b) under any other title of that or any other Community or Union Treaty, relating to public

  183W
  borrowing or revenue support, or the manner of its subsequent expenditure; and what arrangements are made for any such communications to be inspected. [128850]

  Mr. Hill
  We have received no such communications concerning London Underground.

  Transport Infrastructure (St. Albans)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking to improve the transport infrastructure in the St. Albans constituency. [128893]

  Mr. Hill
  In last December's Local Transport Plan Financial Settlement Hertfordshire County Council received a total block allocation of £9,467,000. This consisted of £5,000,000 for integrated transport, an increase of 19 per cent. from the previous year, and £4,467,000 for maintenance and bridges, an increase of 83 per cent. from the previous year reflecting the poor condition of some of the County's roads.

  It is of course for the County Council to decide how this funding should be used and which schemes to promote and we must leave these local projects to the responsible authorities to develop in conjunction with local partners and interests. The local transport plan process emphasises the need to work with the full range of transport providers, businesses, communities and interest groups.

  Hertfordshire County Council will be submitting their full Local Transport Plan in July and I understand that they will be including an Area Plan for mid Bedfordshire. Within this is a programme of improvements for St. Albans which includes, among other elements, improving bus infrastructure, cycling and pedestrian facilities.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what standard penalty clauses are included in private finance initiative contracts for roads; and how many of these have been invoked. [128589]

  Mr. Hill
  Penalties in contracts are not enforceable at law. My Department's privately financed contracts for roads include provisions for ensuring proper performance. In all these contracts performance defaults may lead to the accumulation of points which, through a hierarchical structure, could lead to increased monitoring at contractor expense and ultimately, to contract termination. A number of such points have been awarded on seven of the eight privately financed trunk road contracts in England.

  Council Tax (Carers)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the cost of extending carers' council tax discounts by(a) five per cent. and (b) 10 per cent. to those caring for partners or disabled children in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK. [128171]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: As council tax is a devolved matter, it is for the Parliament and Assembly to answer about the situation in Scotland and Wales.
  184W
  The information for England is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Council tax does not operate in Northern Ireland.

  RDAs
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the projects successfully undertaken by each of the regional development agencies since April 1999 and make a statement on their progress to date. [129113]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: The Regional Development Agencies were responsible for approximately 5,000 projects in 1999–2000. Collating this amount of information could be completed only at disproportionate cost.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each of the last three years(a) the number of applications for mobile telecommunication masts that were the subject of appeals to the Secretary of State and (b) the number of appeal decisions where the local planning authority's decision was upheld. [128937]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Information is not held about telecommunications masts specifically. The following is information relating to appeal decisions about telecommunications development generally.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–200

  Number of appeal decisions made in each year for telecommunications development

  122

  142

  184

  Number of appeal decisions made in each year that upheld the local planning authority's decision

  68

  67

  83

  Rents
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his latest estimate is of the comparative rent levels of council tenants and housing association tenants. [129122]

  Ms Armstrong
  The latest period for which both Local Authority and Registered Social Landlord rent figures in England are available is the financial year 1998–99. Average Local Authority rents for 1998–99 were £42.33 per week and those for Registered Social Landlord rents in England were £51.65 per week. Registered Social Landlords are former housing associations that are officially registered with the Housing Corporation.

  The average rent figures for local authorities and RSLs are not directly comparable because they do not take into account differences in the composition of stock, e.g. size and type of dwellings, their age and condition.

  Housing Green Paper
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the representations received in response to the Housing Green Paper. [129121]
  185W
  Ms Armstrong
  The consultation on the Housing Green Paper runs until 31 July. Responses will in due course be made available for public inspection in the Department's library, unless submitted on a confidential basis.

  Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to issue guidance on the forthcoming Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations. [129582]

  Mr. Hill
  Advance copies of "Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: A Practical Guide" have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The guidance describes the main provisions of the new Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regime to be set up under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations, a draft of which was laid before Parliament on 15 June. The guidance will set out how the Secretary of State expects to see the regulatory regime applied, and how certain terms are to be interpreted. It will complement the Environment Agency's package of technical guidance.

  The guidance will be made more widely available once the regulations have been made.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government plan to launch the Road Safety Advisory Panel, announced in the road safety strategy "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer For Everyone". [129583]

  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Government plan to launch the Road Safety Advisory Panel, as announced in the road safety strategy "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer For Everyone". [129603]

  Mr. Hill
  The new Road Safety Advisory Panel was launched today, and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Lord Whitty) chaired the first meeting. The Panel includes representatives of the main stakeholders in road safety, including the police, local authorities, road safety organisations, road user groups and other Government Departments. Its remit is to provide advice to Ministers on road safety policies and to advise on the planned three yearly reviews of progress towards the casualty reduction targets set in the road safety strategy.

HEALTH

  Vaccination
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2000,Official Report, column 506W, (1) what are the benefits and risks that are considered and constantly reviewed for each individual vaccination; [124762]

  (2) what are the serious adverse reactions to vaccination; and how rare they are. [124761]
  186W
  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 7 June 2000]: The benefits of vaccination are the prevention of illness and death from infectious diseases. These benefits are assessed from clinical trials and epidemiological studies, prior to authorisation for clinical use. Following the introduction of a vaccine, there is ongoing monitoring of disease incidence rates and, where appropriate, outcomes.

  The risks of immunisation to the individual are those of adverse reactions from the vaccine. These risks are evaluated both before and after authorisation using a range of data sources including clinical trials, spontaneous adverse reaction reports from health professionals, epidemiological studies and the published scientific literature.

  The Department publishes full information on the benefits and serious adverse reactions to vaccination in the book 'Immunisation against infectious disease', copies of which are available in the Library. Vaccine-associated paralytic polio is the only serious reaction where evidence supports the suggestion of a causal association and there are demonstrated long-term consequences; this occurs in one out of approximately every million immunisations.

  The authorised Summary of Product Characteristics for each product contains important prescribing information on individual vaccines and possible undesirable effects. These are available in the Compendium of Data Sheets and Summaries of Product Characteristics published by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. The Summary is updated throughout the lifetime of the product, as new information becomes available.

  Compulsory Treatment Orders
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from mental health users regarding the proposed introduction of compulsory treatment orders in the community. [125938]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our proposals to extend compulsory powers under the Mental Health Act beyond hospital settings formed part of our Green Paper "Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983". Consultation on this Green Paper ended on 31 March. We have received over 1,000 responses to this consultation from a wide range of people, including mental health users. Among these was a representation from the Mental Health Alliance, an umbrella group for a variety of organisations, which I received at their recent lobby of Parliament. We are now considering them carefully. I will make an announcement on how we will take this forward in the near future.

  Medicine Prices
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers he has to control the prices of(a) parallel-traded branded medicines, (b) branded medicines dispensed against generic prescriptions and (c) branded generic medicines. [126666]

  Ms Stuart
  The prices of branded medicines derived from parallel trade follow those not so derived. The price of a branded medicine is unaffected if it dispensed against a generic prescription.

  The prices of branded medicines, whether generic or not, are controlled indirectly though the operation of the 1999 Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS), a

  187W
  voluntary arrangement which aims to secure the provision of safe and effective medicines for the National Health Service at reasonable prices. Whether the prices are reasonable is determined by the level of profits which manufacturers make from sales to the NHS. The operation of the PPRS is described in detail in the "Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme: Third Report to Parliament December 1999", copies of which are available in Library.

  Section 34 of the Health Act 1999 allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to limit the prices of branded medicines supplied to the NHS by companies which are not members of the 1999 PPRS. This power has not been exercised because all major manufacturers of branded medicines are members of the 1999 PPRS.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for admission to hospitals, including suspended patients but not including self-deferred cases,(a) in (i) Great Britain and (ii) each health authority, in (1) 1987 and (2) 1992 and (b) in (A) Great Britain and (B) each NHS trust in each year since 1995. [127209]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 23 June 2000]: The information requested for England has been placed in the Library. Matters for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are for their respective Administrations.

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of in-patients are treated at the Diana Princess of Wales hospital in Grimsby in(a) one

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Number of administrative staff; managerial staff; nurses; junior doctors and other medical staff employed in the NHS region as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalent

  England

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Trent

  West Midlands

  North West

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  Other

  1999

  Administrative and estates staff

  149,230

  18,880

  14,900

  15,460

  20,700

  11,910

  25,960

  21,290

  13,020

  7,110

  Administrative managerial staff

  23,380

  2,660

  2,250

  2,400

  2,500

  2,020

  4,290

  3,840

  1,820

  1,590

  Nurses

  338,580

  45,910

  35,640

  35,640

  51,150

  30,920

  51,540

  51,050

  32,660

  4,060

  Of which:

  Qualified

  250,650

  34,540

  25,950

  26,340

  37,420

  21,260

  42,810

  36,620

  24,040

  1,670

  Unqualified

  87,440

  11,380

  9,540

  9,300

  13,720

  9,570

  8,700

  14,320

  8,550

  2,380

  Junior doctors1

  29,470

  3,520

  3,060

  2,940

  4,160

  2,520

  6,930

  4,000

  2,340

  3—

  Other Medical staff2

  26,500

  3,500

  2,620

  2,750

  3,790

  2,540

  4,630

  4,210

  2,460

  3—

  1998

  Administrative and estates staff

  145,670

  18,380

  14,460

  12,910

  20,840

  18,970

  16,700

  15,550

  20,410

  7,440

  Administrative managerial staff

  21,850

  2,510

  2,110

  2,230

  3,410

  3,070

  2,430

  2,160

  2,330

  1,600

  Nurses

  332,200

  44,870

  34,930

  32,310

  46,710

  42,250

  42,100

  35,400

  49,740

  3,880

  Of which:

  Qualified

  247,240

  33,750

  25,390

  23,650

  36,570

  31,930

  31,100

  26,350

  36,820

  1,680

  Unqualified

  84,520

  11,120

  9,540

  8,660

  10,080

  10,000

  11,000

  9,010

  12,910

  2,200

  Junior doctors1

  29,100

  3,590

  2,970

  2,860

  4,180

  2,680

  5,310

  4,190

  3,320

  3—

  Other Medical staff2

  25,160

  3,370

  2,410

  2,620

  3,580

  2,540

  3,920

  3,540

  3,180

  3—

  1997

  Administrative and estates staff

  145,150

  18,420

  14,390

  12,820

  21,060

  18,650

  16,480

  15,290

  20,240

  7,800

  Administrative managerial staff

  21,430

  2,460

  1,980

  2,270

  3,330

  3,130

  2,410

  2,190

  2,190

  1,460

  Nurses

  330,620

  45,030

  34,760

  32,040

  46,920

  42,680

  41,850

  34,200

  49,300

  3,840

  188W
  month or less, (b) three months, (c) six months and (d) over six months; [128500]

  (2) what percentage of in-patients are treated at Scunthorpe hospital in (a) one month or less, (b) three months, (c) six months and (d) over six months. [128501]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest available information is given in the table.

  In patients treated

  Diana Princess of Wales Hospital

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospital

  Elective waiting list admissions

  9,683

  18,740

  Elective waiting list admissions:

  Within 1 month

  1,924

  8,118

  Percentage seen within 1 month

  20

  43

  Within 3 months

  1,895

  3,956

  Percentage seen within 3 months

  20

  21

  Within 6 months

  1,448

  1,989

  Percentage seen within 6 months

  15

  11

  Over 6 months

  4,416

  4,677

  Percentage seen over 6 months

  46

  25

  Note:

  Percentages do not always add to 100 due to rounding.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) administrative staff, (b) managerial staff, (c) nurses, (d) junior doctors and (e) other medical staff were employed in each region in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [127691]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: The information requested is shown in the table.
  189W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Number of administrative staff; managerial staff; nurses; junior doctors and other medical staff employed in the NHS region as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalent

  England

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Trent

  West Midlands

  North West

  Eastern

  London

  South East

  South West

  Other

  Of which:

  Qualified

  246,010

  33,600

  25,150

  23,310

  36,810

  32,460

  30,670

  25,620

  36,770

  1,620

  Unqualified

  84,020

  11,390

  9,610

  8,720

  10,080

  9,790

  11,120

  8,570

  12,520

  2,220

  Junior doctors1

  28,540

  3,640

  2,900

  2,650

  3,910

  2,640

  5,490

  4,130

  3,180

  3—

  Other Medical staff2

  23,840

  3,210

  2,370

  2,490

  3,400

  2,420

  3,710

  3,210

  3,030

  3—

  1Includes Hospital medical staff in grades Registrar group, Senor House Officer and House Officer

  2Includes Hospital medical staff in grades Consultant, Associate Specialist, Staff Grade, Hospital Practitioner, Clinical Assistant and other un-graded staff

  3Not applicable

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  3. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  4. New regional office boundaries were introduced on 1 April 1999

  Sources:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Dental Services (Prisons)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of NHS dentists in prisons. [128159]

  Mr. Hutton
  In most cases dental services to prisoners are provided by visiting general dental practitioners working under NHS general dental services arrangements. Some individual prisons contract for dental services with another provider, usually the Community Dental Service, but sometimes with an individual dentist.

  As part of the prison health care reforms now under way, all prisons and the health authorities in which they are situated are assessing prisoners' health needs and drawing up health improvement plans, which include dentistry. These assessments will help inform how dental services can best be delivered in the future.

  Carers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evaluation he has made of the on-line information service for carers, Starthere, referred to in the National Strategy for Carers; [128263]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the availability of on-line information for carers; [128264]

  (3) what assessment he has made of South Staffordshire's on-line information service for carers. [128265]

  (4) what action he plans to take to co-ordinate on-line information services for carers. [128266]

  Mr. Hutton
  Many carers will not have access to the Internet and will therefore be more likely to use other sources of information (such as: telephone helplines, carers' centres, leaflets in general practitioners' surgeries etc.). However, on-line services are an increasingly important element of information and support to carers as "Caring About Carers", the report of the National Carers Strategy, makes clear.
  190W
  The Department launched the Government's carers' website (www.carers.gov.uk) in February 2000 to allow the increasing numbers of carers who are on the Internet (or those supporting them such as carers' workers) easy access to a range of relevant Government information. There are links to National Health Service, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Social Security, Department for Education and Employment and Employment Service sites as well as those of carers' organisations. The Department of Health controls and updates the website to co-ordinate the links to make them easy for carers to use. The process of assessing the availability of on-line information is therefore an on-going one. The website has been very well received by carers and professionals.

  The Department does not conduct detailed evaluations of all available on-line information services for carers. Starthere receives funding under s64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 and is being monitored and evaluated accordingly. Recent research undertaken in pilot sites in The Whittington Hospital and GPs' surgeries in North London revealed a very high level of satisfaction.

  I am aware of the very helpful Staffordshire Carers' Information website (Resources Bank to Support the Caring Role at Staffordshire University Lichfield Centre) and my officials are making arrangements for a hyperlink from our website to be made to it.

  Maternity Leave (GPs)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the arrangements are for maternity leave for GPs; and if he will make a statement. [128283]

  Mr. Denham
  The payments due to a GP on maternity leave are available for a maximum period of 14 weeks. The period for which a GP may need to be absent from her practice prior to, and after, the birth, is a matter for individual assessment. A GP who is absent for a period longer than this, before or after the confinement, will be eligible for payments under the sickness payments scheme
  191W
  provided that these further absences are due to illness, whether or not this is caused by or attributable to her pregnancy or the birth of the child.

  Certain additional payments may be made to a woman GP during absences due to her pregnancy and her childbirth. Payments will be intended to reimburse her in part for the cost of a locum necessarily engaged to look after her patients.

  Salaried GPs are treated as employees and therefore receive statutory maternity pay.

  Disability
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are currently registered as wholly or partially disabled(a) nationally, (b) in Teesside and (c) in the constituency of Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East; and if he will make a statement. [128513]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available in the requested format. The table shows the number of people on registers of blind and partially sighted persons, deaf or hard of hearing persons or on registers for people with physical disabilities (general classes). Registration is voluntary and is not a pre-requisite to the provision of services. Figures should not, therefore, be taken as an indicator of prevalence nor of the number of people who are in contact with social services.

  Persons on disability registers as at 31 March 1993, 1997 and 1998

  Rounded numbers

  1993 Register of people with general disabilities

  1997 Registered as blind or partially sighted

  1998 Registered as deaf or hard of hearing

  England

  1,336,900

  296,800

  189,600

  Middlesbrough

  126,000

  740

  1,550

  Redcar and Cleveland

  700

  2—

  Stockton on Tees

  700

  2,240

  Hartlepool

  370

  1,220

  1The figures for 1993 refer to the former county of Cleveland

  2Not available

  Sources:

  DH returns SSDA 911, SSDA 902, SSDA 910

  Corporal Punishment
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on religious liberties of the proposal to ban the use of implements in the physical punishment of children by parents included in the document "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents". [129076]

  Mr. Hutton
  The consultation document "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents" was informed primarily by our recognition of the importance of the family and the need to strengthen it, through support to families with children.

  Over 800 replies were received in response to the consultation, a number of which were from faith-based organisations and from individuals who cited the importance of their faith in informing their response. These responses will be considered carefully alongside all of the other responses.
  192W
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances the use of an implement in the exercise of physical punishment of children by their parents would be considered unreasonable, as proposed in the consultation document "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents". [129082]

  Mr. Hutton
  In the consultation document "Protecting Children, Supporting Parents", published in January 2000, six questions were raised for consultation within the context of three possible future options for change. These are all based on the proposal that the defence of reasonable chastisement be set out on a statutory basis. The questions are then raised as to whether the following circumstances can be made reasonable:physical punishment which causes, or is likely to cause, injury to the head (including injuries to the brain, eyes and ears)
  physical punishment using implements (e.g. canes, slippers, belts).

  Those of the over 800 responses received which address these questions will be considered as part of the process of analysing the contributions of respondents.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Joannou and Paraskevaides Group
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what construction contracts his Department has awarded to the Joannou and Paraskevaides Group in the last three years. [123144]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The Department for Education and Employment has awarded no construction contracts to the Joannou and Paraskevaides Group in the last three years.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list in respect of each of the last three years(a) the percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more A*-C grades at GCSE and (b) the average points score at A level for pupils attending (i) specialist schools and (ii) comprehensive schools (excluding specialist schools) in England. [127867]

  Mr. Wicks
  The information requested on GCSEs and GCE A level is shown in the following table. However, it is not possible to make year-on-year comparisons, as the number of specialist schools has increased each year; therefore, the schools in each of the categories have changed.

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (a) Percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving 5 Or more GCSE grades A*-C

  (i) in specialist schools

  50.8

  52.2

  53.3

  (ii) in comprehensive schools excluding specialist schools

  41.6

  42.3

  44

  More detailed analysis is available for specialist school performance from the year each school became specialist up to 1998. The annual average improvement in the proportion of pupils achieving at least 5 or more GCSEs

  193W
  A*-C for specialist schools between 1994 and 1998 was 1.11 percentage points; for non-specialist schools it was 0.75.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  (b) Average GCE A/AS point score of candidates aged 16–18 entered for 2 or more GCE A/AS

  (i) in specialist schools

  17.4

  18.2

  18.3

  (ii) in comprehensive schools excluding specialist schools

  16.3

  16.6

  16.8

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's assessment of the measures required to tackle labour market access for the most disadvantaged groups; and what policies are in place to apply such measures. [127965]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government's key economic aim is high and stable levels of employment so everyone can share in growing living standards and greater job opportunities. The ambition is that, by the end of the decade, there will be a higher percentage of people in employment than ever before.

  An important element of the Government's approach is to address labour market disadvantage to achieve employment opportunities for all. Policies encourage employers to consider the widest range of people for their vacancies—including the long-term unemployed, the economically inactive, people with disabilities, people from ethnic minorities and older people.

  To achieve these aims, the Government have put in place a national framework, supplemented by locally targeted policies:
  a stable macroeconomic platform to promote steady, sustained growth in output and jobs
  policies to promote competition, innovation and enterprise
  investing in education and training so people have the skills they need to take up work
  a labour market policy with a strong work focus linking active and continuous jobsearch with payment of benefit. Through this, and the network of local Employment Service Jobcentres, all unemployed people have regular access to vacancies, advice and help with jobsearch throughout their period of unemployment
  a range of New Deal programmes to help those without a job—especially the long-term unemployed and those on inactive benefits—back into the labour market and from there into work
  policies such as the National Minimum Wage and Working Families Tax Credit designed to make work pay
  the national childcare strategy to increase the range of jobs that are open to people
  Employment Zones, regional policies such as Regional Selective Assistance, the Single Regeneration Budget and the New Deal for Communities, designed to boost the infrastructure and human capital of particularly disadvantaged localities

  Since spring 1997, the Labour Force Survey shows that the number of people in jobs has risen by 978,000. Three fifths of this increase (570,000) has come from people who were previously economically inactive and two fifths
  194W
  (407,000) from a fall in unemployment. 85 per cent. of the fall in unemployment (353,000) has come from people who had been out of work for one year or more.

  These figures are encouraging but there is still more to do.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 554W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128239]

  Mr. Wills
  The table lists the names of the companies as referred to in my answer of 21 December 1999 and indicates where the secondee worked within DfEE.

  Company

  Glaxo Wellcome

  Higher Education Funding Division

  Aquemen

  Private Finance Division

  BBC

  University for Industry—(UFI)

  Team Broadcasting Adviser

  BBC

  University for Industry—(UFI)

  Team Broadcasting Adviser

  Pannell Kerr Foster Associates

  Private Finance Division

  LINK Group

  Individual Learning Accounts

  ICL

  UFI Transition Team

  In each case the secondees worked on developing and delivering Government policy in the areas described above.

  Southwark LEA
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he intends to take in response to the most recent Ofsted report on Southwark local education authority. [128489]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Consultants were employed, jointly by the DfEE and Southwark Council following December's Ofsted report, to advise on ways to improve the LEA's performance and to raise standards in Southwark schools. As a result of their recommendations, Southwark advertised for a strategic partner in March. Two bids have been shortlisted, and there is currently a rigorous process of clarification and evaluation involving both bidders, DfEE and Southwark, aided by consultants. We will select an appropriate model of partnership and a partner with whom the Council will enter into a formal agreement. The partner will, as a minimum, take over the running of the School Improvement Service and play a major role in strategic policy formation. A wider element of service delivery may be included.

  Rural Schools
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he has taken to enhance the role of rural schools within their local communities. [127919]
  195W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Our guidance on the reorganisation of schools makes it clear that there should be a presumption against the closure of rural schools, and we are encouraging community use of school facilities. Our recent booklet "Raising Standards: Opening Doors" encourages imaginative approaches to community use of schools, and a manual is being developed to support schools in their work with the community. We recently introduced a new Standards Fund grant for small schools to help reduce the administrative burden on heads and teachers, and from September an additional Small School Support Fund will encourage small schools to consider and pilot new ways of working with others.

  Standard Spending Assessment (Kent)
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much of its standard spending assessment Kent Education Authority allocated to post-16 education between 1997–98 and 2000–01(a) in absolute terms and (b) per pupil; [128743]

  (2) how much of their standard spending assessment the statistical neighbours of Kent Education Authority have allocated to post-16 education between 1997–98 and 2000–01 (a) in absolute terms and (b) per pupil. [128744]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not available. Local education authorities allocate funding to schools using various factors and there is no separate post-16 component to mirror that used in the standard spending assessment process. Furthermore, central spending by the LEA on secondary education is not separately analysed into pre-16 and post-16 components.

  New University (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will examine the feasibility of establishing a university in Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [128761]

  Mr. Wicks
  It is for the higher education funding councils to offer advice to the Government on such matters in the light of representations made locally. We are not aware of any representations about the feasibility of establishing a university in Shropshire.

  Business Start-ups
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources and money are being made available to help people who are aged 50 years and over, who are not working, to set up their own businesses; and if he will make a statement. [128804]

  Ms Jowell
  People aged over 50 who are looking for work and are considering self-employment may be eligible for Work Based Learning for Adults. This programme provides: initial support and advice; awareness of the implications of self-employment; help to develop business plans; appropriate skills training; and ongoing mentoring while in training. The budget for Work Based Learning for Adults for this year is £316 million for England.

  New Deal 50 plus provides practical advice and financial support for people moving back to work and this support extends to those who become self-employed or set up in business. The Employment Credit of £60 a week for up to a year for those working full-time and the
  196W
  in-work Training Grant of up to £750 provide vital financial support for the individual in their first year back in work. The budget for New Deal 50 plus this year is £120 million for Great Britain.

  In addition, from April next year, New Deal 25 plus will be offering a dedicated route into self-employment.

  The Department for Education and Employment is also helping to fund PRIME, an initiative modelled on the Prince's Trust. PRIME intends to offer advice and financial support for people over 50 wishing to set up their own business.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is providing information about help provided by DTI programmes.

  Swimming Lessons
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support and assistance he will provide to schools in order to ensure that children are provided with adequate swimming lessons. [128822]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Curriculum has always entitled all children to learn to swim unaided for a distance of 25 metres by the time they leave primary school. We have asked Ofsted to report on swimming at Key Stages 1 and 2, using enhanced inspection evidence gathered during November 1999 and information from their existing inspection database. We anticipate receiving their report within the next few months and will then consider their findings.

  Training of Scientists
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consultations he has had with Ministers and officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in respect of the training of scientists with the appropriate expertise to manage radioactive waste. [128862]

  Mr. Wicks
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has had no consultation with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on this subject.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers employed in schools in the London Borough of Wandsworth have applied for the performance-related pay scheme; and if he will make a statement. [128892]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  At this stage, information relating to applications for threshold assessment has not been analysed in sufficient detail to identify the numbers applying from Wandsworth. We will be making this information available in due course.

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date the contract of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools expires. [129020]
  197W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Chris Woodhead's current term of employment as HM Chief Inspector of Schools ends on 31 August 2003.

  Equal Treatment Directive
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the implications of the proposed EU Council directive, establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation for religious liberties. [129086]

  Ms Jowell
  The Employment Directive is still being negotiated and we will work with our partners in other member states to ensure that its provisions relating to religious liberties are clear, workable and consistent with the existing position in the UK.

DEFENCE

  Dockyards
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings he has held with trade unions to discuss dockyard work loads. [128769]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and the rest of his ministerial team met senior trade unions national officers on 12 June 2000 to discuss, among other matters, the management of overall capacity for warship support and maintenance.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans for efficiency savings he has made with regard to Royal Navy dockyards; and if he will make a statement. [128768]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of the Defence Logistic Organisation's drive to reduce costs while increasing the quality of logistic support to the Front Line, discussions have commenced with the privatised dockyard companies and senior trades union national officers looking for innovative ways to reduce the current excess capacity for warship support and maintenance. It is too early to say what this will mean in terms of efficiency savings.

  Precision Bombing
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will acquire GPS tail kits for all RAF iron bombs. [129080]

  Mr. Spellar
  On current plans, we aim to introduce an all-weather precision bombing capability in 2006. The Kosovo campaign confirmed the need to improve our capability in this area and we are examining the scope for advancing this date alongside other high priorities.

  Various technological solutions are available that could provide autonomous guidance for a weapon which meets this requirement, including the use of Global Positional System (GPS) technology.

  There is not considered to be a requirement to acquire all-weather guidance for all our bombs. Laser guided bombs such as Paveway 2 and 3 remain highly cost effective weapons in the majority of weather conditions.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will acquire the Maverick missile system. [129081]
  198W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Kosovo campaign identified the need to enhance our precision attack capability. In March, I announced the start of work to trial the integration of Maverick anti-armour missiles onto RAF Harrier GR7. Trials are proceeding and further decisions will be taken when they are complete.

TREASURY

  European Investment Bank
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those UK companies which receive financial support from the European Investment Bank; for what reason such assistance is provided; and if he will make a statement. [123623]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is given in the 1999 EIB Annual Report, which is available in the Library.

  European Integration
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which areas have been identified by(a) member states and (b) European Community institutions as requiring additional pooling of sovereignty for the better functioning of the single currency zone. [123613]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 71W.

  Euro
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish an independent assessment of the extent to which the five economic tests for entry into the single currency have been met at the time when the Government make their recommendations on entry; [128627]

  (2) what plans he has to publish the Treasury's assessment of whether the five economic tests for membership of the single currency have been met. [128628]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury published the paper "UK Membership of the Single Currency: An Assessment of the Five Economic Tests" in October 1997. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said we will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the nextParliament.

  Road Fuel
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from fuel retailers about rates of duty on diesel and petrol in Northern Ireland and their impact on cross-border smuggling of fuel; and if he will make a statement. [129063]

  Mr. Timms
  I met with the Northern Ireland Committee of the Petrol Retailers Association in October 1999 to discuss the cross-border smuggling of road fuels in Northern Ireland and its impact on the petrol retail industry.

  Treasury Ministers continue to receive representations about the rates of duty on diesel and petrol in Northern Ireland. In addition to representations directly from the

  199W
  Petrol Retailers Association, some individual retailers have contacted their Members of Parliament who have then written to Treasury Ministers on their behalf.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the quantity of smuggled road fuel of each type seized by the customs officers in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and the current year; and how much revenue these seizures represented. [128611]

  Mr. Timms
  The seizures for financial years 1995–96 to 1998–99 are in the Northern Ireland Select Committee Third Report (July 1999). The seizures for the financial year 1999–2000 are as follows:

  Volume seized (litres)

  Revenue (£)

  1,037,0011

  528,870

  1a breakdown by type is not available

  The seizures for the current year are not yet available.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he (1) takes to ensure that answers to parliamentary questions are dealt with in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information; [129068]

  (2) has undertaken to ensure that answers to parliamentary questions are dealt with in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government information. [129217]

  Mr. Timms
  Treasury Ministers seek to answer parliamentary questions fully, providing Members with the information they are seeking. In those cases where it is not possible to do so—for example, if the information requested is not available, if it would be disproportionately costly to obtain it, or if it is appropriate under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose the information—it is our practice to explain the reason in the answer.

  Tax Law Rewrite
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future work programme of the Tax Law Rewrite project; and if it includes the rewriting of the Pay As You Earn Regulations. [129448]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I am pleased to say that the Tax Law Rewrite project is making very good progress and continues to enjoy wide support. A rewritten draft Capital Allowances Bill will be published at the end of July, for final consultations. It is planned to be ready for introduction in Parliament towards the end of this year.

  Work also continues on the much larger task of rewriting the Income Tax legislation. For practical reasons, this will be enacted in stages. The first Income Tax Bill—covering employment income and possibly social security and pensions income—is planned to be ready in November 2002. The aim is to have a second Income Tax Bill—covering trading income, property income and savings and investment income—ready for November 2003.
  200W
  Although the project's remit does not extend to secondary legislation, I am pleased to announce that—as an exception—the rewriting of the PAYE Regulations will be included in the work programme for the first Income Tax Bill. This should be warmly welcomed by employers. The aim is for the rewritten Regulations to come into force at the same time as the first Income Tax Bill, in April 2003.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow members of occupational schemes to make contributions to stakeholder pensions. [129604]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We will shortly table an amendment to the Finance Bill to allow members of an occupational pension scheme, who earn under £30,000 per year and who are not controlling directors, to contribute up to £3,600 a year to a personal or stakeholder pension scheme. This will extend the opportunity of new low cost, good value, portable stakeholder pensions to about 8 million more people. It will allow nearly 90 per cent. of employees who have an occupational pension to also pay into a stakeholder pension.

  A copy of the joint Inland Revenue/Department of Social Security press notice, giving further details of the arrangements, will be placed in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek a change in EU law to limit the number of cycles of travel and rest for animals while being exported to other European countries; and if he will make a statement. [126903]

  Mr. Morley
  We shall be seeking substantial improvements to the EU requirements on the welfare of animals in transit when the Commission brings forward the updating proposals that it has promised for later this year. We shall wish the improvements to include strict and enforceable provisions on the permissible length of journeys.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on milk quotas; and if he will make a statement. [126959]

  Ms Quin
  During the Agenda 2000 negotiations, regular meetings were held with agriculture ministers from other EU member states regarding milk quotas. Further discussions will be held in the run up to the review of the milk quota system in 2003.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from commercial organisations about the percentage of food consumed in the UK which is(a) organically produced and (b) produced by (i) genetic
  201W
  modification and (ii) biotechnology; and what estimates commercial organisations have given him of the amount that will be so produced in 2010. [127015]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 June 2000]: I have received no recent representations from commercial organisations about the percentage of food, provided by any of the above methods, that is currently consumed in the United Kingdom, or estimated for production in the year 2010.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2000,Official Report, column 57W, on organic farming, what have been the major conclusions of the organic research programme on (a) constraints on production, (b) costs of the conversion period and (c) the environmental impact. [126475]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 June 2000]: The majority of the projects funded under the Ministry's organic R&D programme address issues relating to constraints on production and the cost of conversion. These projects have considered a considerable number of issues both specifically and in the context of ongoing studies of agricultural systems. Research on the environmental impact of organic farming has concluded that organic regimes can benefit biodiversity at the farm-level although, the impact is farm-specific and dependent on the management of the farm both before and after conversion to the organic system. Lists of projects funded from 1997–98 are posted on the Ministry's website. Reports containing the conclusions of completed projects are available from the Ministry on request.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will identify those elements of the Common Fisheries Policy which operate in(a) Baltic and (b) Mediterranean waters; and if he will account for the differences in applicability of the policy to Atlantic waters. [127191]

  Mr. Morley
  Baltic Sea fisheries are managed by the International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC), of which the EU is a member. EU regulations are made under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) to implement management measures adopted by the IBSFC. General CFP conservation measures are also applicable in the Baltic Sea to the extent specified in individual regulations.

  Coastal states in the Mediterranean Sea have not generally extended their exclusive fisheries limits beyond 12 miles, reflecting the narrowness of the continental shelf in the area. This has restricted the extent to which general CFP provisions have been applied. The EU has, however, implemented various conservation measures under the CFP covering Mediterranean fisheries, including tuna management measures adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) and a limited number of technical conservation measures.

  The Government consider that the application of the CFP in Atlantic waters can be improved and will continue to pursue opportunities for achieving this.

  Press Releases
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average length of time which it took for press releases to appear on his Ministry's website in the past 12 months. [128059]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 28 June 2000]: The Department publishes its press releases on the MAFF website within 24 hours of the time they are issued. Many are published on the day of release, and we are investigating ways of upgrading existing updating methods to ensure that all do so.

  Ragwort
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has assessed on the efficacy of biological control of ragwort. [128339]

  Mr. Morley
  My Department is not currently involved in any research and development on the biological control of ragwort. Depending on its location and degree of infestation, ragwort can be controlled effectively by a number of means.

  Farrowing Crates
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which expectant and nursing sows suffer from being kept in farrowing crates; and if he will make a statement. [129032]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: This Ministry has funded a considerable amount of research on the behaviour and physiology of sows kept in farrowing crates. Part of this research has been directed towards determining which aspects of confinement in farrowing crates could, potentially, cause frustration in pregnant and lactating sows. We are also funding research to develop and test commercially viable farrowing systems, which encourage freedom of movement for the sow, and provide adequate protection to piglets from crushing by their mother.

  Shellfish Stocks
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the state of shellfish stocks around the United Kingdom coast. [128540]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: Monitoring of the state of shellfish stocks by marine fisheries scientists at the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) suggests that the current rate of fishing on crab, crawfish and lobster could jeopardise stock sustainability. Work is now proceeding on the introduction of a restrictive Shellfish Licensing Scheme to aid stock conservation.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has for the remainder of the year 2000 and for 2001 for(a) netters, (b) beamers, (c) the pelagic sector and (d) all

  203W
  other fishing sectors to financially assist those fishermen who wish to decommission their boat and leave the industry; [128842]

  (2) what current financial support is available to those fishermen who wish to leave the industry and decommission their boats; [128843]

  (3) what plans he has for the remainder of 2000 and for 2001 to assist financially those fishermen operating a line cash system who wish to decommission their boat. [129025]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: There is currently no financial scheme to encourage fishermen to decommission their vessels.

  We are currently considering whether there is a need for a further limited decommissioning scheme, and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to(a) review the operational effectiveness of sea fisheries committees, (b) manage shellfish stocks and (c) regulate use of high-powered under 10m fishing vessels. [128546]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: I keep the operational effectiveness of the sea fisheries committees under regular view. The introduction of a restrictive shellfish licensing scheme, which is now in preparation, should usefully add to existing action at EU, national and Sea Fishery Committee level on the management of shellfish stocks. A cap of 100 VCUs (vessel capacity units) has applied to the aggregation of under 10m fishing vessel licences since February 1996 and earlier this year arrangements were made to link the registration and licensing of all fishing vessels to the declaration of maximum continuous or permanently derated engine power. From 1 January 2001 it will no longer be possible to aggregate licences from vessels under 8m onto vessels between 8 and 10m and a cap of 70 VCUs will apply to the aggregation of fishing vessel licences onto vessels below 8m.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the operation of the legislative framework under which sea fisheries committees operate, with particular reference to(a) consistency of approach to minimum landing sizes, (b) the evidence required to achieve a prosecution, (c) the management of charter fishing vessels and (d) the impact of high-powered under 10m vessels. [128574]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: Under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966, Sea Fisheries Committees (SFCs) have powers within their districts to control the size and power of vessels fishing and to set minimum landing sizes for fish and shellfish, provided these do not fall below those set by EU regulations. The Government are aware of SFC concerns about the inland extent of enforcement powers and is considering appropriate action. SFC bylaws apply as appropriate to the activities of under 10m fishing vessels and charter fishing boats. Responsibility for the registration of fishing and other vessels rests with the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen and vessels fishing for profit must hold a valid licence issued by one of the four Fisheries Departments in the UK.
  204W
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the trade in fishing licences and quota in the last three years; [128838]

  (2) what plans he has to ensure that the trade in fishing entitlements (a) does not undermine the prospects of poor fishing regions, (b) does not worsen the prospects for new entrants to the industry, (c) is not sold to foreign or flag of convenience vessels and (d) does not result in a concentration of quota in the hands of fewer owners. [128839]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: Trade in fishing vessel licences and the fishing opportunities associated with them have been initiated by fishermen themselves. The trade enables new entrants to join the industry and gives fishermen the opportunity to restructure their operations to meet their own business needs. All licensing transactions and exchanges of quota between groups with quota management responsibilities must be conducted in accordance with the rules on licensing and quota management drawn up by the Fisheries Departments in the UK.

  These arrangements are the subject of regular consultation with the fishing industry and are currently under review by two working groups comprising representatives of industry and the Fisheries Departments. A report on possible modifications to the quota management rules, including arrangements for adjusting the fixed quota allocation units attached to fishing vessel licences to take account of transfers between fishermen, is expected shortly and a further report on licensing is expected towards the end of the year.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of a renewable 10-year derogation for national fishing rights within 12 miles of the United Kingdom shore, with particular reference to(a) the length of the derogation, (b) its operation by his Department, (c) its operation by the sea fisheries committees, (d) the exercising of historic rights of other EU member states, and (e) the ability to conserve stock for the future benefit of the fishing industry. [128575]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: As I have already made clear, the Government wish to maintain national 6/12 mile limits when the current EU derogation (under which they operate) expires at the end of 1992, together with current access arrangements based on historic rights under the Common Fisheries Policy. Restrictions on access to waters between six and 12 miles, together with the setting in the EU of Total Allowable Catches and quotas for commercial stocks and EU national, and local technical conservation rules assist, in conserving fish stocks for the future benefit of the fishing industry and of consumers. I shall shortly be discussing with the Association of Sea Fisheries Committees a paper they are preparing entitled "2002 and Beyond" which will, I understand, argue for change in the extent of Sea Fisheries Committee jurisdictions from their present limit of six miles.
  205W
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the efficiency and probity of giving producer organisations in the fishing industry opportunities to manage the distribution of some quota allocations to their members; [128840]

  (2) what (a) amounts and (b) proportions of the United Kingdom's fishing quota are not directly allocated to licensed vessels for each year since 1995 and for the current year. [128841]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 4 July 2000]: In the UK, annual quotas are allocated to groups of fishermen rather than individual vessel owners. The groups are producer organisations (POs), the non-sector (all vessels over 10 metres not in membership of a PO) and the under 10 metre fleet. The quota allocations for the non-sector and the under 10 metre fleet are managed directly by the Fisheries Departments in the UK in consultation with the fishing industry.

  Producer organisations have played an active part in managing quota for more than 10 years. It is for each PO to decide how to manage its allocations in the interests of its members. Before a PO is recognised for the purposes of quota management it must satisfy the appropriate Fisheries Department that it has the necessary systems in place to manage its quota allocations, to monitor landings by its members and to penalise any members who exceed their quota allocations. PO's management of quota is subject to the overall supervision of Fisheries Departments who prohibit further landings of fish by a PO's members once its quota allocations have been taken in full.

  Fisheries Research Vessel
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to commission the construction of a fisheries research vessel; and if he will make a statement. [128488]

  Mr. Morley
  A decision was taken in October 1997 to replace MAFF's oldest fisheries research vessel, RV Cirolana, which is used to collect essential data on the state of fish stocks and the marine environment. A comprehensive business case explored all options, including the Private Finance Initiative and the consequences of not replacing the ship. Investment in a new vessel was agreed as a priority in the 1998 Comprehensive Spending Review, and the procurement process is under way.

  In accordance with EU procurement rules, expressions of interest in the contract to construct the new vessel have been invited, and the responses will be evaluated in order to identify a short list of bidders who will be given the opportunity to tender for the contract. The planned schedule allows for negotiation and award of a construction contract by the end of December 2000. The vessel is expected to be ready for service in March 2003.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on attracting inward investment into the United Kingdom. [129298]

  Mr. Byers
  With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I can announce that the Invest in Britain Bureau (IBB) has in its Annual Review, published today, reported that 1999–2000 was a record year for attracting inward investment projects to the UK, and the creation of new jobs.

  Between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000, 757 direct investment projects by foreign owned companies into the UK were reported to the IBB by its partner agencies in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English Regional Development Agencies. Based on information provided by the companies at the time of the announcement, it is estimated that these projects will create over 52,700 new jobs.

  More overseas companies choose to invest here than anywhere in Europe. They do so because the UK is the best place to do business.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced today that the Invest In Britain Bureau, the Government's national inward investment marketing organisation, which is a part of British Trade International, will be rebranded 'Invest.UK'.

  I am arranging for a copy of Invest.UK's Annual Review to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Balfour Beatty
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what grants, loans and other payments were made by Her Majesty's Government, and what loans were underwritten by the ECGD, to Balfour Beatty in each of the last five years. [128570]

  Mr. Caborn
  From records readily available the following Balfour Beatty business has been the subject of guarantees underwritten by ECGD in each of the last five years:

  Year

  Number of Balfour Beatty contracts supported by ECGD

  Value of ECGD cover £ Million

  1995–96

  6

  62.3

  1996–97

  8

  75.5

  1997–98

  2

  33.7

  1998–99

  3

  15.2

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  Most cover ECGD has underwritten will have been given to UK banks who extended loans to overseas borrowers to enable them to pay for capital goods and services over an extended payment period. However, some insurance cover has been issued directly to Balfour Beatty.
  207W
  DFID advises that payments under the Aid and Trade Provision on development projects for which Balfour Beatty was the main contractor, amounted in each of the last five years to the following:

  £ million

  Project

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  China

  Guangzhou Metro Catenary

  —

  1.419

  1.259

  —

  0.299

  Peru

  Mini Hydros

  0.044

  0.002

  —

  —

  —

  Thailand

  Mini Hydro

  0.218

  0.957

  1.098

  0.304

  0.150

  Payments to Balfour Beatty under the DTI's Overseas Project Fund (now managed by Trade Partners UK), amounted to £459,875 in the last five years.

  Project

  £ million

  Vietnam

  Ton Son Nhat Airport

  0.2

  Taiwan

  High Speed Rail Link

  0.259

  Jaguar Cars
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funds have been promised to Jaguar Cars for(a) the X200 project and (b) the X400 project; what payments have been made to date; and when full payment will be made on each of the projects. [129225]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In 1995 Jaguar received an offer of £48 million Regional Selective Assistance (RSA), plus a £32 million package of local support measures to attract the X200 (S-Type) project to Castle Bromwich. Following discussions with the European Commission, the RSA element of the £80 million package was subsequently revised to £40 million. However, the Commission subsequently agreed in principle that additional aid up to the original £80 million total might be provided.

  Jaguar also received in 1998 an aid support offer of £40 million RSA and up to £3 million in local support measures to secure the X400 project for Halewood—the X400 package has been fully approved by the European Commission.

  The detail of the payments made and their timing is a commercial matter between Jaguar and the aid providers concerned. However in major aid cases such as this, RSA support is normally phased over a number of years.

  Karl Kolb
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list(a) contracts awarded to the German company Karl Kolb by the British Government and (b) the amount of ECGD support provided on contracts in which Karl Kolb was a participating party between 1985 and 1999; and if he will make a statement; [128177]
  208W
  (2) what meetings were held between (a) his Department and (b) British companies with the German company Karl Kolb between January 1985 and June 2000, stating in each case the reason for the meeting, the attendees and any subsequent agreements reached; and if he will make a statement. [128178]

  Mr. Caborn
  There is no record of ECGD having provided support for any contract in which Karl Kolb was a participating party.

  Equally there is no record of this Department ever having awarded a contract to Karl Kolb or held a meeting with Karl Kolb.

  As this Department does not monitor meetings between British companies and overseas firms I am unable to answer the right hon. and learned Member's final point.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) rural and (b) urban sub-post offices operated unprofitably in the last financial year in each constituency in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland; and how many of these in each constituency will benefit from the new fund to improve the quality of post offices. [128749]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  In its report on the Post Office network, the Performance and Innovation Unit has estimated that around 90 per cent. of urban sub-post offices operate profitably and that around 60 per cent. of rural sub-post offices operate unprofitably. I understand from the Post Office that they do not hold data by constituency for the numbers of urban or rural sub-post offices operating unprofitably.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many urban and rural sub-post offices closed for avoidable reasons in the years(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999. [128751]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand that the Post Office does not hold the specific data requested for causes of closure of sub-post offices. The Post Office seeks as far as possible not to close post offices when it can be avoided. As the Performance and Innovation Unit's report recognises, sub-post office closures occur typically in small rural communities where a sub-postmaster resigns or dies and, despite best efforts, the Post Office can find no suitable replacement to take over the running of the office.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his oral statement of 28 June 2000,Official Report, columns 907–20, how many (a) urban and (b) rural sub-post offices were unavoidably closed because (i) no one was prepared to take over from the departing sub-postmaster and (ii) an associated retail business was no longer commercially viable, in (1) 1997, (2) 1998 and (3) 1999. [128750]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand that the Post Office does not hold the specific data requested for causes of closure of sub-post offices. The Post Office seeks as far
  209W
  as possible not to close post offices when it can be avoided. The total numbers of sub-post offices which have closed in the last three financial years are:

  Year

  Sub-post offices

  1997–98

  238

  1998–99

  232

  1999–2000

  380

  Electricity Order 1997
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has reached conclusions following his consultation on proposals to amend the Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order 1997. [129580]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In order to reduce the regulatory burden on generators which are not subject to central despatch at present I am proposing to make changes to the de-minimis level above which a generation licence is required. Subject to final comments, I propose to lay an order to exempt for a period of one year all generators which are not capable of exporting more than 100 MW to the total system and which have energised connections on the date of the order coming into force. Additionally a small number of stations which exceed this limit but are not presently subject to central despatch will be included within this exempt class.

  The change will allow generators which are currently connected to the public network and do not presently have to submit to central despatch the freedom to aggregate their output with suppliers when the new electricity trading arrangements come into effect. This will be of particular help to those plants which do not have predictable or flexible output, including renewables and CHP operators.

  The Government propose to lay the order in August. It will come into force before the commencement of NETA trading in the autumn.

  This order will be an interim arrangement pending the coming into force of new legislation and will apply in England and Wales. During this interim period, generators who wish to connect new plant capable of exporting between 50–100 MW or who plan to increase the size of their plant so that it comes within this category may apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for an individual exemption. In deciding whether or not to grant and in determining the date of the granting of such exemptions, the Department will take into account the views of interested parties—including those of Ofgem and the relevant transmission and distribution network operators.

  It is my intention within the coming year to lay a further, final order replacing this interim order. Further orders will cover the de-minimis rules to govern exemptions from the need for licences to generate, supply and distribute electricity.

  The generation exemptions covering plant of this size will be subject to periodic review. It is the Government's present intention that they will be reviewed approximately every three years.
  210W
  I intend to consult further on possible changes to the rules governing supply exemptions. These changes, which I would propose to bring into effect within the coming year, would help small and industrial on-site generators, including renewable and CHP operators to serve their customers more effectively.

  I am therefore seeking views on a proposal to allow suppliers who generate electricity themselves to supply an aggregate of up to 5 MW of power, of which 2.5 MW may be supplied to domestic customers. The class would be required to supply at prices not exceeding those set out in the order, and would be required to alert customers being recruited as to their status as exempt suppliers.

  I also wish to hear views on a proposal to allow generators which supply a qualifying group of customers on the same site as the generator, to supply the same group of customers at remote sites. This latter class would be required to demonstrate that at least one third of the electricity supplied to the qualifying group went to on-site premises.

  Telecommunications Report
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received a report by the Director General of Telecommunications for 1999, as required under section 55 of the Telecommunications Act 1984. [129579]

  Mr. Byers
  Yes. The sixteenth Report by the Director General of Telecommunications is being published today. It covers the period 1 January to 31 December 1999. This includes initiatives to encourage the widespread take-up of Information Age services such as innovative pricing packages for internet access and opening up competition in BT's local loop to deliver new high-speed services to homes and small businesses. Copies of the report have been laid before each House of Parliament.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of people who will be displaced if the Ilisu Dam project goes ahead; and what plans he has for aid to deal with the consequences of this displacement. [127758]

  Mr. Caborn
  There have been various estimates made about the number of people who will be displaced by the Ilisu Dam project. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 17 January 2000,Official Report, column 268W. In addition, a number of people will be partially affected by the project. Accurate assessment of the numbers who would be affected is now being made as a result of a detailed survey. This work is being carried out by SEMOR, a firm that has experience of carrying out social assessment projects for the World bank. Dr. Ayse Kudat, an eminent environmental sociologist, who was until recently a senior staff member at the World bank, has been appointed by the Swiss Export Credit Agency to assist in this work; the expertise of Dr. Kudat will help ensure that the resettlement programme will reflect internationally accepted practice.

  The Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) which is being drawn up for the Turkish authorities will publish these accurate numbers. The RAP will set out what is to be

  211W
  done to deal with the consequences of those who are displaced or whose lands will be partially affected. It is ultimately for the Turkish authorities to ensure that resettlement is properly carried out. The RAP will of course be discussed among the Export Credit Agencies who are considering offering support for the project. The RAP is currently not expected to be ready until the end of August at the earliest.

  Hydrofluorocarbons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made by(a) his Department and (b) consultants to his Department of the potential toxic effects of release of hydrofluorocarbons into the environment. [128454]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department has not itself carried out or commissioned any such assessments. The Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) is responsible for Government policy on climate change and protection of the stratospheric ozone layer. My Department works closely with DETR in the development of Government policy in these areas.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had with the refrigeration industry trade associations in respect of replacement options for hydrofluorocarbons. [128451]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department holds regular Refrigeration Sector Group meetings, which involve representatives of the refrigerant industry trade associations, industry and other Government Departments to discuss current and future issues of interest such as the use of alternative refrigerants.

  Packaging
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to distinguish between producer responsibility obligations for packaging that has a high energy contribution to its life cycle, and that which does not. [128889]

  Ms Hewitt
  A producer responsibility regime exists for packaging in the form of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. These regulations place an obligation on businesses throughout the packaging chain which meet certain threshold requirements, to recover and recycle packaging waste. The regulations do not distinguish between different kinds of packaging or packaging materials on the basis of either their energy content or the energy consumed in their manufacture and use.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the PFI contracts entered into by his Department, indicating(a) their dates of commencement, (b) their value, (c) if they have been subject to refinancing and (d) if his Department has a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing. [129058]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department and its agencies have signed three PFI contracts—the Radiocommunications Agency's joint venture for the provision of IT services and international consultancy, signed on 8 June 1998,212W
  with an estimated capital value of £15 million; the contract for the redevelopment of the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington, signed on 31 July 1998, with a capital value of £88.6 million; the Elgar contract for the provision of the Department's IT services, signed on 18 November 1998 with a currently estimated capital value of £60 million. The only contract that included external financing by a bank or financial institution was the redevelopment of the National Physical Laboratory. This contract has not been subject to refinancing. DTI agreement would be required in the event that refinancing led to an increase in potential DTI termination liabilities, although there is no pre-determined formal claw-back provision in the contract.

  Small Businesses
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to help people aged 50 years and over who are not working to set up their own businesses; and if he will make a statement. [128739]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Small Business Service, launched in April this year, will provide information, advice, and access to experts on all aspects of running a business, including planning, finance, management, exporting, quality, employment issues, training and development, innovation, design, regulation, information and communication technology and e-commerce.

  The SBS will also run national services to help small firms, including:

  grants for innovation technology transfer;

  management best practice schemes;

  small firms finance, including Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme.

  All these services will be available via the "SBS Gateway", a comprehensive network of business support organisations, initiatives and information from the public, private and voluntary sectors. The Gateway will make extensive use of internet and call-centre technology.

  These services are available to anyone wishing to setup or run their own business, irrespective of age.

  The SBS is also working with PRIME (The Prince's Initiative for Mature Entrepreneurs) with a view to supporting that organisation's plans to enhance access to finance for the over-50s in deprived areas seeking to start in business.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to implement the recommendations made in the Better Regulation Task Force's recent report on helping small businesses cope with regulation, in particular the simplification of rules; and if he will make a statement. [129019]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government response to the Better Regulation Task Force's report was published on 26 June 2000; copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance his Department gives to entrepreneurs in socially excluded areas who wish to start up and develop small businesses as to how they can access the new Phoenix Fund. [129018]
  213W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Phoenix Fund does not support individual enterprises directly, but instead promotes the development of business support among disadvantaged groups or neighbourhoods. A mentoring scheme is already being piloted through some 45 local enterprise agencies and other local partnerships. The Small Business Service is seeking bids for support from community finance initiatives, and I shall shortly be issuing bidding guidance for assistance for novel forms of business support, including incubators.

  Exports
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate the best practical means available for determining the nature and value of goods exported from the United Kingdom to member states of the(a) European Union and (b) European Economic Area, which are re-exported to third nations; and if he will make a statement concerning the available information and the means used to collect it, concerning such exports. [128852]

  Mr. Caborn
  The collection and provision of statistical information is kept under regular review. However, there are no immediate plans to collect information on goods exported from the United Kingdom to the European Union or Economic Area and subsequently re-exported to third countries.

  HM Customs and Excise are the Department responsible for collecting and recording statistics on the movement of goods with other countries. Information on trade in goods with the other member states of the European Union is collected through the Intrastat system. Information on trade with third countries is collated from customs declarations submitted by importers and exporters of goods. UK export statistics are produced by Customs on the basis of declared final country of destination. Goods whose destinations are declared as non-European but which transit other member states after clearing UK customs are recorded as third country exports. Some trade in goods recorded as exports to EC destinations may subsequently be shipped to other countries including non-EC destinations—for instance, as part of further commercial transactions. The Intrastat system does not allow the identification of these movements.

  Shipbuilding Forum
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the date, venue and agenda of the next meeting of the Shipbuilding Forum. [128717]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The next Shipbuilding Forum meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 20 September at 3 pm, at the DTI Conference Centre, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1. The agenda has not yet been agreed.

  Coalfield Regeneration
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will break down the £1 billion provided to assist regeneration in former and existing coalfield communities by principal heads of expenditure. [123127]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: I have been asked to reply.
  214W
  A break down of this investment is set out in "Making the Difference—a New Start for England's Coalfield Communities; The Government's Response to the Coalfield Task Force Report". Copies of this document have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was paid from the Legal Aid Fund to(a) David Cocks and (b) Johnathan Goldberg in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000. [129119]

  Mr. Lock
  I am not able to provide the details requested within the time available, I will therefore write to my hon. Friend shortly. A copy of my reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions have taken place with parties other than Dome Europe and Legacy plc and their affiliates concerning the future use of the Dome since the final shortlist was announced. [127821]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: Since the final shortlist announcement the competition team has not had any discussions about the future use of the Dome site with any parties interested in purchasing it other than the two shortlisted bidders. While the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the competition team have received a small number of new expressions of interest, it has been made clear that no new bids can be accepted in the competition process at this advanced stage.

  TV (Deaf and Hard of Hearing People)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to promote equal access to(a) digital and (b) cable and satellite TV for deaf and hard of hearing people. [128271]

  Janet Anderson
  We are about to undertake a review of the targets set out in the Broadcasting Act 1996 and the Broadcasting (Sign Language) Order 1996 of 50 per cent. for subtitling and 5 per cent. for the signing of digital terrestrial programme services by the 10th anniversary of the start of the service. We are continuing to encourage cable and satellite broadcasters to increase the provision of subtitling and signing on their services. We will be considering the needs of viewers with sensory impairments as part of our consideration of the future regulation of broadcasting in the forthcoming White Paper on communications.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the PFI contracts entered into by his Department, indicating(a) their dates of commencement, (b) their value, (c) if they have been

  215W
  subject to refinancing and (d) if his Department has a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing. [129045]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department has itself not entered into any PFI contracts. The Royal Parks Agency, which is an Executive Agency, has entered into PFI contracts. I will write to my right hon. Friend with details, as soon as they are available, placing copies of my letter in the Library of the House.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Mr. Roger Sylvester
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General what decisions have been taken by the Crown Prosecution Service in the case of Mr. Roger Sylvester; and if he will make a statement. [128629]

  The Solicitor-General
  The circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Sylvester have been investigated by the Essex police and reports submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service. The evidence is being carefully considered by the Crown Prosecution Service in accordance with the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. A decision on whether or not any criminal charges should be brought in connection with the death of Mr. Sylvester will be taken as soon as possible after the evidence has been fully reviewed. It is hoped that a decision can be reached soon.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet(a) Save Our Sellafield Campaign, (b) Friends of the Earth Cumbria and (c) the Socialist Environment and Resources Association to discuss the future of Sellafield. [127569]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe and I will be meeting representatives of the Save Our Sellafield Campaign with my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) later this month to discuss matters relating to Sellafield. I currently have no plans to see representatives of the other two organisations.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister if Lord Levy has served as a personal envoy for other(a) heads of Government and (b) heads of state. [128261]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister on which occasions since May 1997 Lord Levy has issued (i) public statements and (ii) talked to foreign media, as a representative of the(a) Prime Minister and (b) United Kingdom. [128260]
  216W
  The Prime Minister
  When travelling abroad as personal representative of the Prime Minister, Lord Levy has spoken briefly to the press in Lebanon, Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister if Lord Levy has passed messages between Middle Eastern leaders in his role as the Prime Minister's personal envoy. [128519]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: When travelling between capitals, it is normal to relay impressions of meetings, and to pass messages between interlocutors. Lord Levy has accordingly passed some such messages. Details of these are confidential. Lord Levy reports to me and to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on all his diplomatic activity.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the accountability to Parliament of Lord Levy. [129224]

  The Prime Minister
  Accountability to Parliament for Lord Levy's work on my behalf is through me and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what further trips he has asked Lord Levy to undertake in his capacity as the Prime Minister's personal envoy. [129226]

  The Prime Minister
  None at present.

  Queen Mother's Birthday
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 12 June 2000,Official Report, columns 443–44W, what form the consultations with the Royal Household took; and if he will place minutes of the meeting in the Library. [128734]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 3 July 2000]: Officials in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport contacted the Royal Household, who agreed it would be inappropriate to designate the Queen Mother's birthday as a public holiday.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 5 July. [128621]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I will have further such meetings later today.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, in cases where the right to pay reduced rate of national insurance contributions has been lost after two complete tax years out of the labour market or without paying national insurance, if home responsibilities protection, where appropriate, is awarded for retirement purposes. [128597]
  217W
  Mr. Rooker
  Married women and widows cannot get home responsibilities protection (HRP) for any tax year in which they have reduced contribution liability. if they lose their right to reduced liability they can get HRP provided they meet the qualifying conditions.

  Fraud
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the anti-fraud measures introduced by the National Intelligence Unit. [128933]

  Mr. Rooker
  The new national benefits intelligence unit will co-ordinate and extend intelligence on Social Security fraud, aiding both prevention and detection. This builds on intelligence work already being carried out. It will crack down on benefit fraud and draw on the expertise of fraud investigators in the Department, as well as intelligence from local authorities and other agencies.

  This will contribute to a significant strengthening of our defences against benefit fraud and our ability to tackle it where it occurs.

  We have just appointed Mr. John Alpass as head of fraud intelligence, and he is expected to take up post from early September.

CABINET OFFICE

  Policy Action Teams
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will make it her policy to appoint persons with earnings below half average earnings as members of the policy action teams. [128051]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  As I said in my previous answer to my right hon. Friend, on 27 June 2000,Official Report, column 468W, policy action team members were chosen to reflect a wide range of backgrounds, knowledge and experience of issues affecting deprived areas. Information is not held about members' earnings.

  Disaster Contingency Measures
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what representations she has received from(a) consumer and (b) pensioner groups about disaster contingency measures in central Government. [128870]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  Assuming the question relates to Home Office responsibilities for emergency planning, I am not aware of any such representations.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance she has issued to Departments about disaster contingency measures. [128872]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  I assume the question refers to other Government Departments. "Dealing with Disaster", third edition, 1997 is a comprehensive statement of best practice used by Government Departments, the emergency services, local authorities, and other agencies. Other more specific guidance is issued from time to time; some of this can be found on the Home Office website: www.ho.gov.uk/epd

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the establishment of an international tribunal to investigate human rights abuses in Sierra Leone. [128821]

  Mr. Hain
  Perpetrators of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law should be brought to justice. We condemn the flagrant violations in Sierra Leone. We are in discussions with the Government of Sierra Leone and in the United Nations on how best to support President Kabbah's wish to bring those responsible to justice.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for his Department and its agencies the approved list of manufacturers of(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles; and if he will make a statement on his Department's leasing and purchasing policy. [128988]

  Mr. Battle
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office purchasing and leasing policy is based on value for money. We are also required to meet our legal obligations under the EU Public Procurement Directives.

  At present we have contracts with Rover, Land Rover, Jaguar and Rolls-Royce for the supply of cars, and LDV for commercial vehicles.

  At Posts overseas, vehicles are purchased from other manufacturers when this is value for money or when servicing facilities for UK manufactured vehicles are not available.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support the establishment of an International Criminal Court to try the most serious violations of international criminal law. [128586]

  Mr. Hain
  It has always been the policy of this Government strongly to support the establishment of an International Criminal Court (ICC) to try the most serious violations of international criminal law. The UK played a leading role in the successful negotiations which produced the Rome Statute of the ICC. The Government are committed to ratifying the Rome Statute as soon as the necessary legislation can be passed.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the conclusions reached by the Preparatory Commission on the International Criminal Court at its meeting in New York in June. [129209]

  Mr. Hain
  We will be happy to place in the Library the official report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court on its 12–30 June session once it has been issued. I will inform my hon. Friend when this occurs.

  Jordan
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's relations with Jordan. [128585]

  Mr. Hain
  The United Kingdom enjoys a long-standing and close friendship with Jordan. We conduct a substantive bilateral dialogue at all levels, including regular high-level contact. Both my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have visited Jordan this year, and HM King Abdullah of Jordan will pay a state visit to the United Kingdom in November 2000. We look forward to this with enthusiasm.

  Rome Treaty
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's timetable for ratification of the Rome Treaty of July 1998. [128587]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 3 May 2000,Official Report, column 122W.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's export licensing policy is towards Pakistan. [129447]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to assess export licence applications for Pakistan on a case-by-case basis against the national criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct, taking into account the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) on 10 July 1998,Official Report, columns 687–88W. The Government have taken time to consider the situation in Pakistan and the wider region following the coup in October 1999 before deciding on a number of licence applications.

  The Government have now refused 26 standard individual export licence applications for Pakistan. We have also refused Pakistan as a permitted destination on one open individual export licence and approved its inclusion on one other such licence. We have reached these decisions following careful consideration of each licence application against the stated criteria.

  We remain concerned about defence exports to Pakistan, in the light of last year's incursion at the Kargil sector of the Line of Control in Kashmir, the military coup, the possibility of diversion to undesirable end-users and continued regional tensions. We have refused licences for certain military equipment to Pakistan because we do not judge that they meet our criteria.

  The Government have issued 20 standard individual export licences for a narrow and well defined range of equipment, eg naval spares, bomb disposal equipment, goods for civilian end-users. We have assessed that issuing licences for this equipment would not contravene our national criteria, nor those in the EU Code of Conduct. Details of all licences issued will appear in the 2000 Annual Report.
  220W
  We will continue to assess licence applications on a case-by-case basis and keep the situation in Pakistan under close scrutiny.

  Sanctions
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on that part of the Government's response to the International Development Committee on the Future of Sanctions (HC 473) concerning the imposition by the United Kingdom of unilateral financial sanctions. [129581]

  Mr. Hain
  I regret that the statement is incorrect. The UK has imposed unilateral financial sanctions on several occasions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for drawing my attention to this oversight in a recent adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, on 29 June 2000,Official Report, column 260WH.

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amounts of Iraq's supplies of(a) botulinum, (b) anthrax, (c) aflatoxin, (d) gas gangrene and (e) ricin remain unaccounted for; and if he will make a statement. [128179]

  Mr. Hain
  Iraq took four years to admit it had a biological weapons (BW) programme. Even after a further three and a half years work, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) could not compile a comprehensive technical, industrial and scientific assessment of Iraq's BW programme. This was because of Iraq's failure to provide a credible full, final and complete disclosure of its programme, as required by the United Nations, or to co-operate with UNSCOM in clarifying its declarations. There have been no UN weapons inspections in Iraq since December 1998, hence the importance we attach to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) gaining access at the earliest opportunity.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount of Iraq's supplies of(a) tabun, (b) sarin, (c) mustard gas and (d) VX gas remain unaccounted for; and if he will make a statement. [128180]

  Mr. Hain
  Although the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was able to destroy, remove or render harmless large quantities of chemical weapons (CW), their components, precursors and major production equipment, there remain significant gaps in their understanding of Iraq's CW programme. Even accepting the figures for CW agents and precursors unilaterally destroyed by Iraq in contravention of United Nations Security Council resolution 687, there are discrepancies in Iraq's declarations on the number of weapons filled with chemical agents and the number used during the Iran/Iraq war or lost after the Gulf War. Questions remain on the production and weaponisation of VX, CW production equipment and CW precursors. There have been no UN weapons inspections in Iraq since December 1998, hence the importance we attach to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) gaining access at the earliest opportunity.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with her EU counterparts to discuss aid for humanitarian and reconstruction purposes in Kosovo; and if she will make a statement. [127744]

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on aid to Kosovo. [127765]

  Clare Short
  We made a major contribution costing £119 million to the emergency effort in Kosovo.

  The EC is now taking the lead, and has agreed programmes in health, energy, water supply, housing transport and economic reconstruction costing 360 million euros, of which the UK contribution is £50 million.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Kosovo, with particular regard to children. [127766]

  Clare Short
  We keep the humanitarian situation in Kosovo constantly under review, including through our close contacts with the multilateral humanitarian agencies. We have contributed £2.5 million in this financial year to UNICEF's operations in the Balkans.

  Civil Conflict
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the Government's criteria are for giving aid to countries experiencing civil conflict. [127746]

  Clare Short
  We support the provision of humanitarian relief to all who are in need. Conflict is a major threat to development. We are strengthening our effort to resolve and prevent conflict.

  China Western Poverty Reduction Project
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement regarding her Department's policy on the Qinghai component of the China Western Poverty Reduction Project, to be considered by the World bank on 6 July. [127747]

  Clare Short
  Britain supported this project in the bank board meeting in June 1999 because it would bring significant benefits to 1.7 million of the poorest people in China. They represent four different ethnic minorities, they live in very remote and inaccessible villages and many of them are barely scratching a living. It will give poor people from a range of ethnic groups the opportunity to meet their basic needs. It will deliver a wide range of benefits such as increasing food production, providing safe water and improving access to basic social services. We also supported the Board conclusion that no funds would be disbursed on the Qinghai component of the project until an independent inspection panel had conducted an investigation, and pending further environmental and social assessments.
  222W
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy on the Qinghai component of the China Western poverty reduction project. [127757]

  Clare Short
  The report by the independent inspection panel, and bank management's response to it, will be discussed at a World bank board meeting in early July 2000. We will be looking very carefully at the conclusions of the inspection panel report, and the bank management's response to it, in advance of the bank board meeting.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the independent Inspection Panel's findings about the World Bank's practice in identifying and comparing alternatives to the Qinghai project. [128731]

  Clare Short
  In response to the claim in the inspection panel report that they have not considered alternatives to the Qinghai project, the World bank state that they have explored a range of developmental options in some detail, covering both whether resettlement is the most appropriate response, and whether the area chosen for that resettlement is appropriate.

  We have asked, and will ask again at the board meeting on 6 July, that this analysis be documented more thoroughly prior to project appraisal.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the independent inspection panel's findings that the World bank's relating to(a) its indigenous peoples policy and (b) its operational directive on involuntary resettlement in respect of the Qinghai project. [129028]

  Clare Short
  We have looked very carefully at the conclusions of the independent inspection panel, which raises a number of important issues regarding social safeguards and resettlement policy. The Report and the response to it from bank management will be discussed at a board meeting on 6 July 2000. At that meeting we will be seeking to satisfy ourselves that the World bank has in place the necessary social safeguards before this project begins.

  Britain supported this project in June 1999 because it would bring significant benefits to 1.7 million of the poorest people in China. We also supported the board conclusion that no funds would be disbursed on the Qinghai component of the project until an independent inspection panel had conducted an investigation.

  Conservation (Africa)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the impact on indigenous and nomadic people in Africa of Government-supported conservation projects. [127748]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 29 March 2000,Official Report, column 175W and on 7 June 2000, Official Report, column 260W.

  India
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's aid programmes in India. [127749]
  223W
  Clare Short
  Britain has a large and growing programme of development assistance to India: we expect to spend about £125 million this year, rising to £140 million in 2001–02. This reflects the fact that about a third of the world's poorest people live in India, and we see good opportunities to work with reforming states to tackle poverty more effectively. We are supporting programmes of fiscal and public sector reform, to help improve accountability and access by the poorest to basic education, health, water and sanitation, and to promote better management of the natural and physical environment. Our programme is currently focused on Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and West Bengal, and we are collaborating closely with the World bank, the Asian Development bank, UNICEF and other major development agencies. In all our programmes we take particular care to ensure the inclusion of poor women and girls and members of scheduled castes and tribes.

  I am placing a copy of our India Country Strategy Paper in the Library of the House.

  Poverty Alleviation (Russia)
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what help her Department is giving to the Russian Government to alleviate poverty. [127750]

  Clare Short
  We expect to spend around £28 million on bilateral assistance to Russia in the current financial year. This is additional to the UK share of the European Commission's Tacis programme (our contribution to which is on average £12 million per annum) and as a shareholder of the World bank and EBRD. Our aim is to support the process of transition to a democracy and a market economy in a way which protects the people—particularly the poorest—during the transition and brings real benefits to the society.

  The transition is far from complete and the level of poverty is very great. We are currently reviewing our programmes.

  World Education Forum
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking following the agreement reached at the world education forum in Dakar. [127751]

  Clare Short
  In preparation for the Forum, my Department produced a consultation document, "Education for All: The Challenge of Universal Primary Education". Copies are available in the House of Commons Library. This document is being refined following the Forum but its threefold strategy for achieving the International Development targets for education will remain unchanged:strategic contributions to the development of international commitment, and well co-ordinated policies and programmes designed to achieve Education for All (EFA). This will include involvement with the "high-level small and flexible group" to be established by UNESCO's Director General to coordinate EFA partners and maintain the momentum of Dakar.
  strong bilateral programmes, with priority to Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, that will provide strategic assistance to Governments and civil societies committed to achieving universal primary education and gender equality. We will allocate
  224W
  significant additional resources to support basic education, where Governments are committed to this objective and have put in place appropriate policies to deliver on it.
  knowledge and research strategies that will contribute to the ability of the international community to learn lessons, share experience and monitor progress.

  West Bank
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's efforts to promote economic development in the West Bank. [127752]

  Clare Short
  Our development strategy for the West Bank and Gaza Strip concentrates on nation building with a view to promoting peace, stability and economic development. To promote economic development we are intensifying our policy dialogue with the Palestinian Authority, and with the European Community, the International Monetary Fund, the World bank and others and funding a programme which supports this. We are providing technical assistance to the Ministry of Economy and Trade, to strengthen its capacity to develop and apply economic policy, particularly with regard to trade with the EC and the region. Our programme also emphasises the importance of an accountable and transparent government framework in which private investors can operate. Our bilateral programme expenditure for 1999–2000 was approximately £8 million. Our contribution to the United Nations Relief Works Agency for Palestinian refugees and our share of European Community and other multilateral programmes for the Palestinians takes our average annual contribution to over £25 million in recent years.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her plans for aid to Zimbabwe. [127753]

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on future bilateral development assistance to Zimbabwe. [127764]

  Clare Short
  A copy of our country strategy for Zimbabwe is in the Library, and we are keeping the situation under continuous review.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is providing to the people of Sierra Leone. [127754]

  Clare Short
  We are supporting a wide range of programmes to improve the effectiveness of Government systems including policing the media and the accountability of the security sector. We have also contributed to disarmament and demobilisation programmes, humanitarian relief and reconstruction. We expect to remain engaged in Sierra Leone for the long term to support peace, disarmament and development for some of the poorest people in the world.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will visit St. Helena to mark the 500th anniversary of its discovery. [127755]
  225W
  Clare Short
  I have no current plans to visit St. Helena.

  HIPC
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the progress of the revised Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative. [127756]

  Clare Short
  So far, only six countries have qualified for debt relief under the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. A further three are expected to do so later this month. But it is disappointing that so few have reached their decision points. Some countries who could benefit from HIPC debt relief are involved in war and civil strife, or have failed to demonstrate their commitment to tackling poverty. At the spring meetings of the World bank and the IMF in April, the Government's proposal to establish a joint World bank/IMF committee to oversee the implementation process was agreed. The committee has begun its work and should provide a focus for efforts to meet the target that three quarters of eligible countries start to receive debt relief before the end of 2000.

  AIDS (Sub-Saharan Africa)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her Department's aid to countries in sub-Saharan Africa to combat the spread of AIDS and HIV. [127759]

  Clare Short
  Along with conflict, the HIV/AIDS epidemic poses the greatest threat to development in sub-Saharan Africa. HIV/AIDS has affected people of every class and culture in Africa. However, it is the poor who have felt the worst of the impacts because they are more vulnerable to the economic and social difficulties the epidemic brings.

  We are heavily engaged in work to combat HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, both in seeking to prevent new infections and in supporting improved care for people whose lives have been affected by the disease. We currently allocate about £25 million per year to HIV/ AIDS prevention and care activities in sub-Saharan Africa and this is set to rise.

  In the face of such a devastating epidemic, we cannot afford to be complacent and there is an urgent need to intensify action. In Uganda and Senegal we have seen how sustained political commitment by African Governments and a co-ordinated response in partnership with the international community has controlled and even reduced infection rates. This must be replicated elsewhere in Africa.

  Primary Education
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress the Government are making towards their goal of ensuring that all children benefit from primary education. [127760]

  Clare Short
  We are making good progress in helping developing countries achieve the international development target of universal primary education (UPE) by 2015. But much remains to be done; it is unacceptable 226W
  that in the year 2000 more than 113 million children, a large majority of whom are girls and those from socially vulnerable groups, have no access to primary education.

  The bulk of spending on education by most developing countries remains directed to higher education. The reason is that elites are powerful in very poor countries. It is difficult political task to get a commitment to spending on the poorest children in rural areas. We are working hard on this task through the international system, and by contributing more funds. We have committed £300 million over the past three years to UPE programmes and will do more. We are working to persuade governments and their civil societies to prioritise the education of poor children. Progress is being made and we need sustained interest through to 2015.

  Our strategy for achieving the UPE target is set out in the Department for International Development's consultation document "Education for All: The Challenge of Universal Primary Education". Copies are available in the House of Commons Library.

  International Development White Paper
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made on the preparation of the second international development White Paper. [127761]

  Clare Short
  Work on the White Paper is proceeding well. There has been a public consultation agreement across Whitehall on the provisional outline, research has been commissioned and detailed work is being undertaken by cross-departmental groups.

  Human Rights
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how her Department is helping to promote human rights in poorer countries; and if she will make a statement. [127762]

  Clare Short
  Human rights are central to my Department's work, which is dedicated to the achievement of the human rights of the poorest people of the world. We will shortly be publishing our strategy paper on "Human Rights for Poor People".

  Zambia
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the effectiveness of micro credit schemes in reducing poverty in Zambia. [127763]

  Clare Short
  Studies of one of our micro-credit partners, the Christian Enterprise Trust of Zambia, show that access to micro-credit helps its clients, who come from the poorest groups, to achieve higher incomes, better household nutrition, and increased access to education and health services. Our other micro-credit projects show similar results.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list for her Department and its agencies the approved list of
  227W
  manufacturers of (a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles; and if she will make a statement on her Department's leasing and purchasing policy. [128991]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development makes use of three official cars, namely a Vauxhall Omega, a Vauxhall Vectra and a Ford Mondeo. All cars are used on a lease basis from the Government Car Service costing a total of £142,476.36 per annum.

  New Deal
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many employees of her Department and its agencies have been recruited from the New Deal; and what percentage this represents of total staff. [129097]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is as follows.

  Number: 5

  Percentage: 0.4.

  PFI Contracts
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the PFI contracts entered into by her Department, indicating(a) their dates of commencement, (b) their value, (c) if they have been subject to refinancing and (d) if her Department has a claw-back entitlement to share in savings arising from refinancing. [129052]

  Clare Short
  My Department has not entered into any PFI contracts.

  Third-world Debt
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what pressures she will bring to bear on countries attending the G8 Summit in July to ensure that the debt owed by the world's poorest countries is cancelled. [129085]

  Clare Short
  When the Prime Minister met the Japanese Prime Minister last month, they agreed the importance of discussing debt issues at the G8 Summit in Okinawa.

  It was at the Cologne Summit last year that the G7 agreed a very substantial improvement to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, which was agreed by the boards of the World bank and IMF at the annual meetings in September 1999. The enhanced HIPC initiative provides faster, wider and deeper debt relief to poor countries committed to eradicating poverty.

  The emphasis now is on implementing the enhanced initiative, so that the target of three-quarters of eligible countries starting to receive debt relief before the end of the year can be achieved. At the spring meetings of the World bank and IMF in April, we persuaded the bank and the Fund to establish a joint committee to oversee the implementation process. The Government are committed to keeping up the momentum not only in the run up to the G8 Summit but also beyond it.

  Globalisation
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what consultations she is 228W
  holding with organisations in developing countries in advance of the publication of the White Paper on Globalisation. [127745]

  Clare Short
  We are consulting widely organisations and individuals here and in developing countries as part of the preparation of the White Paper on Globalisation and Development. In March, an outline of the White Paper was sent out to key institutions and a website established. We have invited submissions from individuals and organisations in the UK and from developing countries. In addition, on 11 and 12 July I am chairing a round table on globalisation and development for various academics and practitioners from developing countries.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Policing Charges
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the charges made in the last year for which figures are available for policing commercial events; and if he will make a statement. [128576]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on charges made by police forces for policing commercial events is not held centrally.

  The decision whether to charge for costs of policing at local events is for the local police authority and the Chief Constable.

  Under Section 25(12) of the Police Act 1996,
  the Chief Officer of Police may provide, at the request of any person, special police services at any premises or in any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained, subject to the payment to the police authority of charges on such scales as may be determined by that authority.

  The rationale behind charging is that the taxpayer at large should not be asked to pay for services provided at private events or events which benefit only a relatively small section of the community. It is for the Chief Officer concerned to determine whether a given service would constitute a special police service. Special police services are not defined in the 1996 Act or elsewhere. However, I would expect them to be services that meet some or all the following criteria:

  they are not part of the general duty of the police to keep the peace and protect life and property;

  the service to be provided is on private land; and,

  the service to be provided is for a commercially organised event.

  Police (Efficiency Savings)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have achieved the requirement of year-on-year efficiency savings of 2 per cent.; what monitoring is undertaken of how forces are achieving the efficiency savings and what guidance is issued by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [128536]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are two elements to the achievement of the 2 per cent. efficiency targets set for the police each year between 1999–2002. The first is to plan and deliver savings, either cashable, non-cashable or both; the second and most important element is to deliver
  229W
  levels of performance to a required standard. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) reported in May 2000 that all 43 forces were on track to deliver the required efficiency gains subject to performance levels being assessed as satisfactory. I expect HMIC to report on police performance levels later this month.

  The efficiency process is subject to rigorous inspection by HMIC with support from the Audit Commission and external auditors. This ensures that only permissible savings are counted. The police authority and force must also ensure that a link between resources and performance outcomes is established.

  The Home Office issued guidance on efficiency planning to police forces and authorities in November 1998, when the process was launched, and again in December 2000 to support planning for the second year of efficiency gains. HMIC also issued detailed guidance in the course of its inspection process and has advised forces and authorities throughout the process.

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total planned cost is of the Public Safety Radio Communications project in each

  Estimated PSRCS menu charges, based on same roll-out profile as core charges

  £000

  Force

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  14

  84

  84

  84

  84

  84

  84

  84

  84

  84

  Bedfordshire Police

  0

  26

  105

  105

  105

  105

  105

  105

  105

  105

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  0

  158

  210

  210

  210

  210

  210

  210

  210

  210

  Cheshire Constabulary

  0

  0

  128

  384

  384

  384

  384

  384

  384

  384

  City of London Police

  0

  33

  132

  132

  132

  132

  132

  132

  132

  132

  Cleveland Constabulary

  0

  0

  193

  256

  257

  257

  257

  257

  257

  257

  Cumbria Constabulary

  0

  202

  242

  242

  242

  242

  242

  242

  242

  242

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  25

  297

  297

  297

  297

  297

  297

  297

  297

  297

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  382

  916

  916

  916

  916

  916

  916

  916

  916

  916

  Dorset Police

  0

  173

  160

  160

  160

  160

  160

  160

  160

  160

  Durham Constabulary

  14

  168

  671

  671

  671

  671

  671

  671

  671

  671

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  0

  13

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  23

  Essex Police

  0

  0

  1,357

  1,357

  1,357

  1,357

  1,357

  1,357

  1,357

  1,357

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  117

  233

  233

  233

  233

  233

  233

  233

  233

  233

  Greater Manchester Police (GMP)

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  599

  Gwent Constabulary

  0

  89

  134

  134

  134

  134

  134

  134

  134

  134

  Hampshire Constabulary

  0

  0

  721

  1,442

  1,442

  1,442

  1,442

  1,442

  1,442

  1,442

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  0

  240

  412

  412

  412

  412

  412

  412

  412

  412

  Humberside Police

  0

  234

  216

  216

  216

  216

  216

  216

  216

  216

  Kent County Constabulary

  0

  0

  0

  1,217

  1,460

  1,460

  1,460

  1,460

  1,460

  1,460

  Lancashire Constabulary

  755

  755

  755

  755

  755

  755

  755

  755

  755

  755

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  173

  346

  346

  346

  346

  346

  346

  346

  346

  346

  Lincolnshire Police

  0

  0

  155

  206

  206

  206

  206

  206

  206

  206

  Merseyside Police

  0

  0

  192

  329

  329

  329

  329

  329

  329

  329

  Metropolitan Police Service

  0

  797

  3,188

  3,188

  3,188

  3,188

  3,188

  3,188

  3,188

  3,188

  Norfolk Constabulary

  0

  0

  0

  227

  248

  248

  248

  248

  248

  248

  North Wales Police

  0

  40

  238

  238

  238

  238

  238

  238

  238

  238

  North Yorkshire Police

  738

  886

  886

  886

  886

  886

  886

  886

  886

  886

  Northamptonshire Police

  0

  0

  214

  1,281

  1,281

  1,281

  1,281

  1,281

  1,281

  1,281

  Northumbria Police

  0

  688

  635

  635

  635

  635

  635

  635

  635

  635

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  0

  0

  134

  178

  178

  178

  178

  178

  178

  178

  South Wales Constabulary

  0

  342

  684

  684

  684

  684

  684

  684

  684

  684

  South Yorkshire Police

  0

  0

  128

  256

  256

  256

  256

  256

  256

  256

  Staffordshire Police

  0

  0

  0

  601

  801

  801

  801

  801

  801

  801

  Suffolk Constabulary

  725

  1,450

  1,450

  1,450

  1,450

  1,450

  1,450

  1,450

  1,450

  1,450

  Surrey Police

  0

  0

  167

  334

  334

  334

  334

  334

  334

  334

  Sussex Police

  0

  98

  1,180

  1,180

  1,180

  1,180

  1,180

  1,180

  1,180

  1,180

  Thames Valley Police

  0

  977

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  1,303

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  0

  0

  54

  650

  650

  650

  650

  650

  650

  650

  West Mercia Constabulary

  223

  268

  268

  268

  268

  268

  268

  268

  268

  268

  230W
  year; what his estimate is of the costs which will have to be met directly by police forces, per force and in total, in each of the next 10 years; what proportion of the total cost is to be met by additional central Government funding; and if he will make a statement. [128535]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 26 June 2000,Official Report, column 655, and to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on 17 January 2000, Official Report, columns 301–02W.

  The tables show the Public Safety Radio Communications Service (PSRCS) core costs as contained in the PSRCS contract, and the anticipated distribution of estimated menu costs over the 10-year period. Forces will additionally need to purchase control room and radio terminal equipment. Based upon our present understanding of the police service's overall requirement, we estimate the initial purchase and subsequent replacement costs for terminals to be around £300 million in net present cost terms over the whole PSRCS contract life. We cannot at present assign these costs to individual forces.

  The future costs of the project will be taken into account during our discussions with the Treasury on spending for the next three years, the results of which are expected to be announced in the summer.
  231W

  Estimated PSRCS menu charges, based on same roll-out profile as core charges

  £000

  Force

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  West Midlands Police

  0

  890

  2,670

  2,670

  2,670

  2,670

  2,670

  2,670

  2,670

  2,670

  West Yorkshire Police

  0

  0

  1,914

  2,297

  2,297

  2,297

  2,297

  2,297

  2,297

  2,297

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  0

  113

  135

  135

  135

  135

  135

  135

  135

  135

  Total estimate for England and Wales

  3,765

  10,225

  21,748

  29,186

  29,652

  29,652

  29,652

  29,652

  29,652

  29,652

  PSRCS core charges as agreed in contract, signed 29 February 2000

  £000

  Force

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  2009–10

  2010–11

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  476

  2,857

  2,857

  2,857

  2,857

  2,857

  2,857

  2,857

  2,857

  2,857

  Bedfordshire Police

  0

  267

  1,063

  1,063

  1,063

  1,063

  1,063

  1,063

  1,063

  1,063

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  0

  945

  1,258

  1,258

  1,258

  1,258

  1,258

  1,258

  1,258

  1,258

  Cheshire Constabulary

  0

  0

  612

  1,831

  1,831

  1,831

  1,831

  1,831

  1,831

  1,831

  City of London Police

  0

  249

  1,001

  1,001

  1,001

  1,001

  1,001

  1,001

  1,001

  1,001

  Cleveland Constabulary

  0

  0

  1,053

  1,405

  1,405

  1,405

  1,405

  1,405

  1,405

  1,405

  Cumbria Constabulary

  0

  860

  1,031

  1,031

  1,031

  1,031

  1,031

  1,031

  1,031

  1,031

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  142

  1,702

  1,702

  1,702

  1,702

  1,702

  1,702

  1,702

  1,702

  1,702

  Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

  1,220

  2,927

  2,927

  2,927

  2,927

  2,927

  2,927

  2,927

  2,927

  2,927

  Dorset Police

  0

  1,279

  1,181

  1,181

  1,181

  1,181

  1,181

  1,181

  1,181

  1,181

  Durham Constabulary

  114

  1,364

  1,364

  1,364

  1,364

  1,364

  1,364

  1,364

  1,364

  1,364

  Dyfed-Powys Police

  0

  518

  886

  886

  886

  886

  886

  886

  886

  886

  Essex Police

  0

  0

  2,763

  2,763

  2,763

  2,763

  2,763

  2,763

  2,763

  2,763

  Gloucestershire Constabulary

  534

  1,073

  1,073

  1,073

  1,073

  1,073

  1,073

  1,073

  1,073

  1,073

  Greater Manchester Police (GMP)

  6,373

  6,373

  6,373

  6,373

  6,373

  6,373

  6,373

  6,373

  6,373

  6,373

  Gwent Constabulary

  0

  776

  1,167

  1,167

  1,167

  1,167

  1,167

  1,167

  1,167

  1,167

  Hampshire Constabulary

  0

  0

  1,656

  3,308

  3,308

  3,308

  3,308

  3,308

  3,308

  3,308

  Hertfordshire Constabulary

  0

  959

  1,644

  1,644

  1,644

  1,644

  1,644

  1,644

  1,644

  1,644

  Humberside Police

  0

  2,091

  1,930

  1,930

  1,930

  1,930

  1,930

  1,930

  1,930

  1,930

  Kent County Constabulary

  0

  0

  0

  2,600

  3,123

  3,123

  3,123

  3,123

  3,123

  3,123

  Lancashire Constabulary

  3,057

  3,057

  3,057

  3,057

  3,057

  3,057

  3,057

  3,057

  3,057

  3,057

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  864

  1,725

  1,725

  1,725

  1,725

  1,725

  1,725

  1,725

  1,725

  1,725

  Lincolnshire Police

  0

  0

  792

  1,058

  1,058

  1,058

  1,058

  1,058

  1,058

  1,058

  Merseyside Police

  0

  0

  2,373

  4,069

  4,069

  4,069

  4,069

  4,069

  4,069

  4,069

  Metropolitan Police Service

  0

  7,464

  29,857

  29,857

  29,857

  29,857

  29,857

  29,857

  29,857

  29,857

  Norfolk Constabulary

  0

  0

  0

  1,298

  1,412

  1,412

  1,412

  1,412

  1,412

  1,412

  North Wales Police

  0

  212

  1,274

  1,274

  1,274

  1,274

  1,274

  1,274

  1,274

  1,274

  North Yorkshire Police

  1,100

  1,318

  1,318

  1,318

  1,318

  1,318

  1,318

  1,318

  1,318

  1,318

  Northamptonshire Police

  0

  0

  182

  1,098

  1,098

  1,098

  1,098

  1,098

  1,098

  1,098

  Northumbria Police

  0

  3,866

  3,569

  3,569

  3,569

  3,569

  3,569

  3,569

  3,569

  3,569

  Nottinghamshire Constabulary

  0

  0

  1,602

  2,139

  2,139

  2,139

  2,139

  2,139

  2,139

  2,139

  South Wales Constabulary

  0

  1,392

  2,789

  2,789

  2,789

  2,789

  2,789

  2,789

  2,789

  2,789

  South Yorkshire Police

  0

  0

  1,440

  2,880

  2,880

  2,880

  2,880

  2,880

  2,880

  2,880

  Staffordshire Police

  0

  0

  0

  1,449

  1,937

  1,937

  1,937

  1,937

  1,937

  1,937

  Suffolk Constabulary

  576

  1,154

  1,154

  1,154

  1,154

  1,154

  1,154

  1,154

  1,154

  1,154

  Surrey Police

  0

  0

  732

  1,465

  1,465

  1,465

  1,465

  1,465

  1,465

  1,465

  Sussex Police

  0

  236

  2,838

  2,838

  2,838

  2,838

  2,838

  2,838

  2,838

  2,838

  Thames Valley Police

  0

  2,862

  3,820

  3,820

  3,820

  3,820

  3,820

  3,820

  3,820

  3,820

  Warwickshire Constabulary

  0

  0

  74

  891

  891

  891

  891

  891

  891

  891

  West Mercia Constabulary

  1,590

  1,911

  1,911

  1,911

  1,911

  1,911

  1,911

  1,911

  1,911

  1,911

  West Midlands Police

  0

  0

  2,164

  6,489

  6,489

  6,489

  6,489

  6,489

  6,489

  6,489

  West Yorkshire Police

  0

  0

  4,060

  4,873

  4,873

  4,873

  4,873

  4,873

  4,873

  4,873

  Wiltshire Constabulary

  0

  920

  1,105

  1,105

  1,105

  1,105

  1,105

  1,105

  1,105

  1,105

  Sub total

  16,046

  50,357

  101,377

  121,490

  122,615

  122,615

  122,615

  122,615

  122,615

  122,615

  Plus 3 per cent. adjustment for PNC gateway access, TUPE and change in apportionment of total cost between England, Wales and Scotland

  16,527

  51,868

  104,418

  125,135

  126,293

  126,293

  126,293

  126,293

  126,293

  126,293

  Plus menu charges shown in separate table

  3,765

  10,225

  21,748

  29,188

  29,652

  29,652

  29,652

  29,652

  29,652

  29,652

  Total core and menu costs

  20,292

  62,093

  126,166

  154,322

  155,945

  155,945

  155,945

  155,945

  155,945

  155,945

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many units of accommodation the National Asylum Seekers Support Service has so far secured for housing destitute asylum seekers. [128558]

  Mrs. Roche
  As of 30 June the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) had placed 3,028 destitute asylum seekers into accommodation. The process of accommodating destitute asylum seekers is of course demand led. The exact number of units available changes day by day as providers notify the service of properties. We are continuing to negotiate with both the public and private sector for further accommodation, but it was always the intention that accommodation providers would be asked to provide accommodation on a basis of need.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed at the National Asylum Seekers Support Service. [128560]

  Mrs. Roche
  As of 30 June there were 433 staff employed in the National Asylum Support Service. Of these 423 are employed in Croydon. In addition there are 10 Regional Managers situated around the country who are responsible for ensuring that the support arrangements function satisfactorily in their area.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has given to the Refugee Council on the establishment of emergency reception facilities for destitute asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [128559]

  Mrs. Roche
  Officials in the National Asylum Support Service have provided assistance to the Refugee Council in identifying suitable property and in contract negotiation where this has proved necessary. In addition, the Refugee Council has been given advice on the standards we expect to be met for emergency accommodation that is provided for destitute asylum seekers while their claim for support by the National Asylum Support Service is considered.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases the National Asylum Seekers Support Service has so far(a) assessed and (b) referred to accommodation outside London. [128557]

  Mrs. Roche
  As of 30 June the National Asylum Support Service had received 5,327 applications for support. Not all of these would have included a request for accommodation. As of 30 June 3,212 asylum seekers including dependents had been dispersed to accommodation outside London.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme took place; what its conclusions were; when the next review is due; and if he will make a statement. [128537]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The scheme is under review at the present time. The review was launched by the issue last year of a consultation paper entitled "Compensation for Victims of Violent Crime: Possible Changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme". The responses to that public consultation exercise are still under consideration, and we hope to be in a position to announce our intentions shortly after the summer recess.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the results achieved by the Prison Service on each of its key performance indicators during 1999–2000. [129194]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service is currently assembling final performance data for 1999–2000. The key performance indicator (KPI) results will be reported in the Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts which is scheduled to be laid before Parliament on 20 July 2000. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  The provisional KPI results for 1999–2000 were given in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on 18 May 2000, Official Report, columns 210–12W.

  Anti-suicide Strategy (Women Prisoners)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to produce an anti-suicide strategy relating to women in prison; and if he will make a statement. [128740]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service's current suicide awareness strategy came into effect from April 1994. Its main principles apply equally across all types of prisons and prisoners whether male/female, adult/young offender or remand/sentenced. This approach to caring for the suicidal is based upon sound research and draws upon best practice from within other organisations.

  Strategies for reducing the risk of suicide are kept under continual review. The publication of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons thematic review: "Suicide is Everyone's Concern" last year provided a key impetus for this work. Work is in progress to examine how existing strategies can be better tailored to the needs of women prisoners. Guidance and good practice will be incorporated in a Prison Service order due for issue later this year.

  Data Protection Act 1998
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many certificates he has signed with respect to section 28 of the Data Protection Act 1998 since 1 March. [129186]

  Mr. Straw
  None. However, I expect to sign a certificate in the near future.

  Death in Custody
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the investigations carried out into the death in custody of Nathan Graham by the(a) Governor of HM prison Whatton and (b) Nottinghamshire police. [128702]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am replying, as the Minister responsible for prisons.

  An internal investigation into the death of Nathan Graham at Nottingham prison on 9 November 1999 was carried out by David Walmsley, Governor of Whatton prison. This is routine practice on behalf of the Prison Service and an investigation report of the findings has been compiled. This report was disclosed to Mr. Graham's

  235W
  family before the inquest. The report concluded that there were no grounds for any disciplinary action against prison staff.

  An investigation into this death was also conducted by Nottinghamshire police on behalf of the Coroner, in view of the unusual circumstances of this case (Mr. Graham was disabled). There was no evidence of any criminal action in this matter and no charges were laid against prison staff. Mr. Graham's death was considered at a Coroner's inquest between 7–9 June, when it was adjourned. A date has yet to be set for the resumption of this inquest.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the windows in cells in Holloway Prison will be changed to make it impossible to attach a ligature to them; and if he will make a statement. [128741]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service is currently testing prototype improved window ventilators at Holloway prison. These will be evaluated to assess all potential benefits, including the effectiveness of their anti-ligature properties. Following the assessment, funding will be sought through the Prison Service's normal capital appraisal process for installation of the most appropriate ventilators. Assuming these funds (likely to be of the order of £8 million) are forthcoming, a rolling installation programme for all cells at Holloway will be developed. Completion of such a programme could take three to four years.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for his Department and its agencies the approved list of manufacturers of(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles; and if he will make a statement on his Department's leasing and purchasing policy. [128990]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Department does not maintain a list of approved vehicle manufacturers. The Home Department accesses Ministry of Defence contracts to acquire its vehicles. The following list includes all mainstream British vehicle manufacturers.

  Ministry of Defence contractors, cars and commercial vehicles, accessed by the Home Office:

  Rover

  Land Rover

  Ford Motor Company

  Vauxhall Motors

  Peugeot Motor Co.

  Nissan Motor (GB) Ltd.

  Honda (UK) Ltd.

  Volkswagen AG

  Citroen UK Ltd.

  Fiat

  Renault Cars

  Volvo Car UK Ltd.

  Diahatsu UK

  LDV Ltd.

  Leyland DAF Trucks Ltd.

  International Motors (ERF Trucks).

  236W
  Departmental policy for the selection of vehicles has three main roots:
  to select the vehicles most suited to the task bearing in mind our responsibility for the disbursement of public funds;
  to uphold the policies of the European Communities supplies directive 93/36/EC Purchase of Goods; and
  to reduce the environmental impact of the fleet by ensuring that 70 per cent. of the vehicles purchased this year will incorporate either high pressure injection diesel engines with particulate filters, or dual fuel petrol liquid petroleum gas engines.

  Football Hooligans
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what efforts are being made to inform football clubs of the identities of the football hooligans who were(a) detained and (b) deported from Euro 2000. [128156]

  Mr. Straw
  It is the intention of the Football Association, with the strong support of the Government, to seek life bans from their home grounds for any individual convicted of offences involving hooliganism at Euro 2000; this cannot, however, apply to the majority of those detained and deported, since it has been acknowledged by the Belgian authorities that many of those detained or deported were not guilty of any criminal offence.

  It is intended that the Bill on football hooliganism which I announced on 4 July 2000, Official Report, columns 170–83, should include provisions better to permit the National Criminal Intelligence Service to transfer appropriate information to the Football Association.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many international restriction orders against football hooligans are in force in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland. [128151]

  Mr. Straw
  There are currently 106 people subject to international football banning orders in England and Wales; there is no equivalent legislation in Scotland or in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many international restriction orders have been made in each of the past 10 years. [128152]

  Mr. Straw
  There were 19 restriction orders imposed in 1990, four in 1991, two in 1992, none in 1993, one in each of 1994, 1995 and 1996, 10 in 1997, and 100 in 1998. In 1999, 18 restriction orders were imposed, as well as three international football banning orders, which replaced the restriction order under the terms of the Football (Offences and Disorder) Act 1999. So far 28 international football banning orders have so far been imposed in 2000.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those football hooligans deported from Euro 2000. [128157]

  Mr. Straw
  No, since it has been acknowledged by the Belgian authorities that many of those deported were not guilty of any criminal offence.

  Police (Out-of-court Settlements)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the out-of-court settlements agreed to by police forces in the UK since 1 January 1998, broken down by police force, indicating in each case the recipient, the amount agreed and the reason for the settlement; what process exists for police forces to make a decision to settle out-of-court; how the public are informed of such decisions; and if he will make a statement. [128516]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is available centrally only on the number and total amount of settlements agreed in 1998–99 before proceedings were initiated or after court proceedings were commenced but before final judgment, including payments "without accepting 238W
  liability". The available information has been placed in the Library for each force in England and Wales by type of action. 1998–99 was only the second year in which forces were requested to supply this information and the information provided is not complete.

  The process by which a force agrees to settle a case out of court is one for the force and its insurers (where it has employer and public liability cover). This will be based on an assessment of the cost and likelihood of successfully defending an action. Forces are accountable to their police authority for their handling of these cases. The Government's response to the Home Affairs Select Committee's report in 1998 on the Confidentiality of Police Settlements of Civil Claims supported the view that forces should publish information about civil actions in their annual reports.

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

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
John Freeman, Lord Bishop of Chelmsford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Blackburn and the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Australia: Centenary
2.40 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements have been made to mark the visit to London of Australia's Prime Minister John Howard and his delegation to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the passing of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, John Howard has a full programme of meetings in London, including calls on my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will speak at a parliamentary ceremony in the Royal Gallery tomorrow, hosted by the Lord Chancellor and Madam Speaker, which celebrates the centenary of the passage through Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. The week will also include a Guildhall banquet hosted by the Lord Mayor of London and a service for Australia at Westminster Abbey. I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge my noble friend's role as founder chairman and now president of the ANZAC Group of Peers and MPs.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her reply. Is this not a timely moment to recall the statesmanship of those—Australian and British parliamentarians alike—who created the 1900 Act, heralding as it did a century of excelling friendship between the two countries: one that aligned us side by side in war; that has given us cherished and enduring cultural, sporting and other ties; and that makes Australia still the second highest investor in Britain and us the second highest investor in Australia? Notwithstanding the privations inflicted on us by Australia's test cricketers and the "Wallabies"—not to mention Wimbledon—long may it continue!
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's words. Our relationship with
1476
Australia goes from strength to strength and we hope that it will continue to do so in the next one hundred years. Our ties with Australia are wide ranging. I hope that the House will forgive me if I brush quickly past our sporting ties, not least after the result at Wimbledon on Monday. As my noble friend has pointed out, we are staunch allies and Australia has been a supporter of NATO's policies in the former Yugoslavia. It is our business to value partners, and we do so most warmly today.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I declare a longstanding interest in Australia. Even today I work for a British company which is very active in Australia. I had the honour of fighting alongside Australians in a couple of campaigns and I have the highest regard for them. I am a member of the Returned Services League of Australia. It is a great organisation which could give any British government advice on how to care for veterans. In that context, does the Minister accept the great sacrifices made by Australians in two world wars? Do the two governments have any plans to erect a memorial or to do something to commemorate this in the coming years in our city of London?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are acutely aware of the service given by Australians in the two world wars and in many other wars. During the Gallipoli campaign they suffered thousands of casualties. The Minister for the Armed Forces, John Spellar, travelled to the Gallipoli peninsula in April to commemorate the 85th anniversary of ANZAC day and the sacrifices made by Australian, British and other troops. I was at the commemoration at the Cenotaph in London. I was also with John Howard when he laid a wreath to the war dead at the Cenotaph this morning. I was deeply moved on both occasions.
I am able to say that last night John Howard announced that the Australian Government will build a war memorial in London. The Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government warmly welcome that initiative. I should also like to pay tribute to the distinguished service of the father of the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, the late first Viscount Slim, who was a valiant commander-in-chief of the allied land forces in South-East Asia, which included Australian troops, and who was described by the late Lord Mountbatten as the finest general the Second World War produced. The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, himself should be mentioned for his successful term and for his contribution in that regard. I do so most warmly.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as an Australian whose father stood for the very first ever federal senate elections, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether she is aware that Miss Margaret Parkes—the 75 year-old great granddaughter of Clarinda and Sir Henry Parkes, who was always known as the Father of Federation—has flown here specifically to join in the celebrations this week?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I welcome most warmly the news that she is here. We celebrate

1477
that fact. It is fitting that a great granddaughter should be present today to help us celebrate this great occasion of the 100th birthday. I welcome her most warmly.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the Australian people on this anniversary. Will the noble Baroness convey to Mr Howard, on behalf of the people of this country, our warmest thanks for the role which they played in liberating East Timor and for the outstanding leadership displayed by General Cosgrove when he commanded the forces there?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very happy to say that that message will be conveyed. It has already been expressed, but it certainly bears repetition.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest as my father held an Australian passport. Has the Minister any further details regarding the centenary gift proposed for Australia which she declared in her oral Answer to the House on 17th January and her Written Answer on 29th February?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are marking the centenary in Australia with a substantial contribution—about half the total cost—to a monument in Canberra. The gift recognises the relationship between the people of Australia and Britain and commemorates our shared belief in the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly as well as the sovereignty of Parliament embodied by Magna Carta. A design team has been chosen by open competition. The centrepiece is a commemorative pavilion. We very much look forward to its construction.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Baroness has outlined a very encouraging programme and a fitting celebration of an Act passed 100 years ago under a Conservative government, whose Prime Minister was Lord Salisbury. Does she agree that, looking to the future, relations between Britain and Australia are getting closer and closer, particularly in hard economic and commercial terms and in terms of investment flows between the two countries? Does she further agree that Australia is now part of the great Oceania, South-East Asia, Asia Pacific market which in few years' time may be richer and bigger than that of the entire European Union? Does she conclude from that that some of our foreign policy energies and the energies of her department—which sometimes seem to get bogged down in quarrels and difficulties nearer home with our nearer and sometimes less friendly neighbours—could be better deployed in building up and strengthening our ties with one of our loyalist, best and longest-standing friends?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that we have always valued
1478
that relationship, that we have tended it carefully, nurtured it and it is now in full flower. I should also like to remind the noble Lord that, although he was right in saying that the Act was passed during the period of office of another government, the inspiration for it came from my noble friend Lord Morris who sits on these Benches; and the then government showed good sense in taking it over and making it their very own.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is most appropriate that we should be celebrating the centenary of the Commonwealth of Australia when Australia has only recently voted to keep the Queen as Queen of Australia?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, there are many reasons to celebrate. I warmly join the noble Lord in saying that we have much to celebrate on this occasion.

Farmers and Growers: Fair Markets
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What initiatives they have taken to help British farmers and growers to obtain a local market and a fair return for their produce.
Lord Carter: My Lords, British farmers and growers produce a tremendous variety of products. Individual farm businesses are best placed to know their own products and markets, but the Government can and do help by providing a wide range of financial and other assistance to help farmers and growers become more competitive and develop their marketing skills. Anyone who was at the Royal Show this week could not fail to be impressed by the number of marketing initiatives, both government-backed and from individual farmers or groups of farmers, which are now being introduced.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I agree that a number of initiatives are being introduced. The NFU farm assurance scheme and the National Dairy Council white stuff campaign are much to be welcomed. However, does the noble Lord accept that there is a long way to go in terms of joined-up government in this area? I have in mind the Food Standards Agency report National Diet and Nutrition Survey which shows our children on a diet of fizzy drinks, sweets and biscuits. Very low in their diet is milk, cheese and fruit. Could not all government departments, starting with the Department for Education and the Department of Health, do far more to forge a link between local producers and local

1479
consumers so that healthy habits in terms of eating and an appreciation of the true quality of food produced in Britain are encouraged throughout our society?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right. The nutritional value of the food we eat is extremely important and should be a part of our education system. The noble Baroness referred to the local situation. Farmers' markets are an interesting initiative. There was one in Bath in 1997. There are now 200, compared with 2,500 in the USA. In addition, the ministry and the Countryside Agency have assisted in the setting up of the National Association of Farmers' Markets. Those are local initiatives which relate the production of local produce to the consumer. It is to be hoped that the Department of Health and other departments will have their part to play in educating children and adults about the value of healthy eating.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I welcome the Government's encouragement of local farmers' markets. But is the noble Lord aware that the markets of hill farmers in the Pennines in northern England have a minimal impact in terms of the total economy? Is he further aware of the desperate plight of the farmers of the Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland dales? Have the Government any plans other than farmers' markets which might offer a way out of the desperate plight in which many hill farmers find themselves at the moment?
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are entirely aware of the problem. It is as much a problem of the commodity market as it is of the system. We have done a good deal since the action plan was introduced under the initiative of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. We have removed the weight limit on the over-30 months scheme for cattle; we have scrapped the dairy hygiene inspection charges, which will help the small dairy farmer; we have put an additional £4 million into the redundant building grant scheme, which will help the small upland farmer; and we have introduced a number of other initiatives. But at the end of the day there is no avoiding the fact that farming is facing a major change. We have put in a good deal of money through the various schemes introduced by my right honourable friend Jack Cunningham, when he was Minister, and Nick Brown. They have introduced money into the uplands. It is not enough—I agree with that—but we have made a start. We are aware of the problem.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, what progress has been made on reducing misleading labelling on food, an issue which is of great concern to many families?
Lord Carter: My Lords, like every other member of the European Union, we are constrained by the European regulations and by the rules of the WTO. Labelling must not be misleading. But there is nothing to prevent the voluntary labelling of the country of
1480
origin so long as the information does not mislead the consumer. The Food Standards Agency is reviewing the whole situation with regard to labelling. It has taken that forward at EU level. That is the response to the better food labelling initiative launched in January by my noble friend Lady Hayman. It is worth pointing out to those who believe that this all comes from Europe that the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 states that the place of origin is the place in which a product last underwent a substantial change. So the problems of labelling are not all down to Europe.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am sure that we all welcome the noble Lord's comments about the growth in farmers' markets. But can he confirm or deny that there is great concern among those taking part in the farmers' markets that EC regulations are likely to stop that development in terms of demanding that there should be refrigeration equipment in the streets when farmers are trying to sell local produce?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the ministry is at present discussing the problem with Europe. Our understanding is that we should be able to produce a system which will allow the farmers' markets to produce. One can see farmers' markets all over Europe. We want a system that allows these local initiatives to flourish.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the theme of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer—healthy eating. I try to purchase organic food whenever possible. Can my noble friend say what is the uptake of the organic farming scheme?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have extremely good news. In 1998–99, £1 million was allocated in grants. That was following on from the previous government's scheme. In 1999–2000, £11 million was allocated; £12 million has been allocated for 2000ߝ2001; and £140 million is allocated in the rural development plan for 2001–2007. In April 1999, there were 60,000 hectares in the organic farming scheme. There are now 160,000 hectares. That is a threefold growth in one season. We have reacted to the demand for organic farming; and it is working.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord will have noted the word "growers" in the Question. Does that include horticulture? Is the noble Lord aware that horticulture receives no grants? What do the Government intend to do to help that hard-pressed side of agriculture?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I always think that the horticultural industry is an excellent example of the free market working without subsidy, which I am sure noble Lords on the Benches opposite would support. There is the assured produce scheme. It is producing standards which will improve the saleability and the marketing of horticultural produce. That is the best

1481
way to go. The Government will not be introducing a subsidy. The horticultural industry has to relate to the market.

River Danube
2.58 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the work of clearing the Danube at Novi Sad, funded by the European Union, will be completed; and whether temporary arrangements can be made for transferring freight around the obstructions.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the target date for the opening of a fully navigable channel at Novi Sad is spring 2001. Some vessels already navigate along canals and Danube tributaries which bypass Novi Sad.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I very much welcome the noble Baroness's reply if only because of the very serious losses that the obstructions have caused to the economies of countries such as Romania and Bulgaria. Did I hear the noble Baroness correctly in saying that some transhipment of goods is at the moment possible?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right: a certain amount of transhipment is possible. Obviously larger vessels encounter the greatest difficulties, but smaller vessels are able to get through. The situation is improving. We hope that the clearing of the Danube, a task which is now being pursued with some energy, will greatly help matters in the area.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for that reassuring information. Additional to the issue of the navigability of the Danube is the continuing plight of the 350,000 citizens of Novi Sad, who are forced to use a single very inadequate pontoon bridge in order to get about the city. That bridge is all that now stands in place of the three major bridges that were destroyed. Will my noble friend bear in mind the ironic fact that the region of Vojvodina, in which the city of Novi Sad lies, is governed by political parties which have long been bitterly opposed to Milosevic, as indeed are the people of Novi Sad? Those people have been asking for how much longer they will have to pay such a high price for the policies of a man whom they intensely dislike.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. We hope that the people of Serbia will come to the right decision as regards what is in their best interests. We also hope that the clearance of the Danube will do much to make matters a little easier for the people of Novi Sad.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House, first, why the canals situated mainly inside the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia are subject to such very high tolls and charges, thus making it much more difficult to bypass Novi Sad? Secondly, as regards a broader issue, can she indicate how rapidly the development of the Balkan economic stability pact is progressing, of which, obviously, the Danube river system is an absolutely crucial element?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a specific answer in relation to her first question. I hope that she will allow me to write to her on that matter. As regards the Balkan economic stability pact, that pact is now yielding a great deal of beneficial help and assistance. As a result, considerable support has already been made available both bilaterally and multilaterally for the countries of the region. This has been intensified since the end of the NATO air campaign. The UK is an active supporter of the Stability Pact for South-East Europe, which has the potential to bring many benefits to the region and to act as a clearing house both for existing sources of assistance and for new ideas and initiatives. The UK continues to provide considerable support through the bilateral assistance programme. The Department for International Development's country programmes for Rumania and Bulgaria have been enlarged since the end of the conflict. Some £6 million has been made available for Rumania, along with £4 million for Bulgaria. We continue to provide bilateral assistance to Hungary of the order of £2·5 million per annum. We are a major contributor to the EU programme for all the accession countries. Matters are progressing as swiftly as we could reasonably anticipate at this point.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend explain to the House why it is taking so long to clear a few bridges out of a river? Speaking as a civil engineer, I can confirm that the European civil engineering industry would be quite capable of undertaking this task far more quickly than the timetable that has been indicated—and could probably also build a new bridge. Is this a political problem or is this a matter of lack of resources?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm that neither of the two suggestions made by my noble friend have been the source of the problem in the area. I wish that the noble Lord was right; namely, that the clearing of the Danube would be as easy as he suggests. However, it has been a difficult process, although we have made great strides forward. Her Majesty's Government have been at the forefront of those pressing for progress and ensuring that the job is done. Furthermore, the European Union has committed 22 million euros to the initiative. We hope that the work will be completed as speedily as possible. We understand the urgency and thus we are trying to push forward the agenda as quickly as possible.

Tackling Hooliganism
3.3 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith asked Lord Dixon-Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the issuing of on-the-spot fines to drunken hooligans by police officers would be consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, on-the-spot fines are not currently available as a penalty for a criminal offence in England and Wales. The Government take very seriously the problems posed by drunken hooligans and are considering whether it will be necessary to introduce new methods to deal with this type of behaviour. Any new measures would of course need to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which takes us forward a little. Can he tell the House whether his right honourable friend the Prime Minister had taken the trouble to obtain advice from lawyers—although I appreciate that we cannot ask what that advice might have been—before he made his rather startling announcement last weekend? More importantly, did the Prime Minister take advice from the police service, who would have the responsibility for administering such a scheme?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I think that it is now well known that on Monday afternoon my right honourable friend the Prime Minister spent some two hours in the company of seven chief constables taking their careful advice. What this matter has demonstrated is that the Prime Minister, along with the Government as a whole, is committed to finding ways to deal with the outlandish behaviour of louts and yobs—the kind of behaviour we all find so objectionable—outside public houses and other public places on Friday and Saturday nights. Any government should take those issues seriously. We are determined to tackle that kind of horrible behaviour because it does nothing for our town and city centres and harms our communities.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we must not lose sight of the human rights of ordinary people who wish to go about their business on Saturday nights and not be impeded by people who are drunk or who are football hooligans? Does he further agree that most people would prefer to have in place a government who put forward plenty of new ideas in an effort to tackle these problems, rather than simply settle for a government who during 18 years of power did nothing?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the simple and short answer to my noble friend is, yes, of course I
1484
agree. We know that we must put this situation right by tackling loutish and yobbish behaviour. That is why yesterday the Government proposed new measures to tackle football hooliganism. I believe that those measures have received wide public support. Furthermore, I hope that all parties in your Lordships' House will also support such moves.
Lord McNally: My Lords, has the Minister read the opinion of retired Chief Superintendent Tom Swendell of the Hertfordshire police force? He states that:
"Policing is an activity for the streets. There are far too many feet under desks. When the administrative culture becomes bigger than the operational commitment, that's a road to disaster".
Is not that the kind of advice that the Home Secretary should be taking, instead of listening to advice that results in what we are seeing at the moment; namely, a gimmick a day from a Home Secretary who for three years aped Michael Howard and now quite clearly has lost the plot?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords. I cannot agree that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has lost the plot. The fact that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are determined to deal with the kind of behaviour that has been discussed many times recently in your Lordships' House speaks volumes about the Government's serious commitment to dealing with public disorder. We all need to care about these issues and I should be extremely disappointed if the noble Lord, Lord McNally, did not care as well.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, it appears that the plot being followed here is that the number of serving policemen should fall while the number of crimes committed should rise. That is what is happening at the moment. So far as concerns on-the-spot fines, did the Minister note that the Home Secretary has promised to introduce legislation as soon as possible; namely, to bring forward measures to the House of Commons on Monday? Can the Minister tell the House whether it will be for the individual policeman to decide on the level of the fine to be imposed on the spot, as would be done in a court in accordance with the seriousness of the offence?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I find it rather hard to take the noble Lord entirely seriously. He was a member of a government who presided over a rate of recorded violent crime increasing by 168 per cent. Furthermore, he was a member of a government who saw crimes of robbery increase by 405 per cent. As I said, I find it extremely difficult to take the noble Lord seriously when discussing these matters. We shall pursue all feasible means to bring down the amount of loutish behaviour occurring in our town and city centres. Furthermore, I expect noble Lords opposite to give the Government their support.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am slightly mystified this afternoon? I hope that he will be able to help me. I read in this morning's press that the Conservative Opposition supported in principle the introduction of these measures. Is that the case? If it is, can my noble friend explain the behaviour of noble Lords opposite this afternoon?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that we are all puzzled from time to time by the words and actions of noble Lords opposite. I was extremely puzzled when I read an account which stated that, on the one hand, Ann Widdecombe would support our measures to deal with football hooliganism but, on the other hand, comments were made by other members of the same political party to the effect that they were not sure whether they supported these moves and were concerned about issues of civil liberties. As a government we need to lead the charge in this area. We should protect the civil rights and civil liberties of those who wish to go about their business peaceably.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that we are in great danger of losing the plot? There is no shortage of legislation against offences of the kind that he outlined, but it is not being implemented. We do not need new laws; we need existing laws to be implemented by whatever measures are necessary to allow that.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's remarks as a serious contribution to the debate. However, we must consider the fact that every Friday and Saturday night those who are drunk and disorderly in our town and city centres take up valuable police time in terms of processing after arrests have taken place. There is merit in examining in more detail a fixed penalty system. The idea was given some measure of support by leading and senior police officers earlier this week.

Royal Parks (Trading) Bill
3.10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe moved the amendment:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—

(".(1) The Secretary of State shall review and prepare a report On Review of Act. the operation of this Act.

1486

(2) In reviewing the operation of this Act the Secretary of State shall consult persons appearing to him to represent the users of royal parks and such other persons as he considers appropriate.

(3) The report shall contain details of-

(a) the number of-

(i) prosecutions, and

(ii) convictions, for park trading offences;

(b) the effect of this Act on trading within royal parks; and

(c) the cost of enforcing the law relating to park trading offences.

(4) The Secretary of State shall lay the report before each House of Parliament no later than eighteen months after the day on which this Act is passed.")

The noble Lord said: I do not wish to detain the Committee and shall therefore be brief. I have tabled the amendment with a view to protecting the monarchy. It proposes the insertion of a new clause asking for a report on the workings of the Bill when it becomes law.
We are all aware of the grotesque abuses that presently take place as regards unlicensed traders, and which must be curbed. I believe that the experience of implementing this legislation in the Royal Parks will be of great use to other areas in the country that suffer the same problem. Therefore, it is important that a report should be submitted to Parliament within a period of approximately 18 months on how the measure is working and how lessons can be learnt from it which can be applied to other parts of the country.
Why do I seek to publicise the matter in this way? There have been a large number of constitutional changes which we have not even had time to digest. Yet Members of the Committee will recently have received a further communication from Charter 88 with the rather pretentious title Unlocking Democracy, outlining a whole set of further demands. I do not believe that these people will give up even if these demands are satisfied.
I raise the matter because the body of the report contains a very sour paragraph about the monarchy, written in a distasteful manner. Only yesterday in another place, during the Statement on the Civil List, the first Back-Bencher on the government side to speak was the Member for Cannock Chase, who drew attention to the fact that it was not possible to reduce the amount of money paid to the Crown and called this into question.
These are sinister portents. The Member for Cannock Chase is a member of the Constitution Unit council. He is also chairman of the All-Party Constitution and Citizenship Group. An examination of the group's details indicates, under the heading "Benefits from outside sources", that,
"Administrative support is provided by Charter 88".
We are faced with what in vulgar parlance—I would not dream of using the expression in this place—
Lord Strabolgi: What has this to do with the Bill, which is about controlling itinerant traders in St James's Park and other parks?
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I hope to satisfy my noble friend with my dénouement—that is one of the shreds of my French vocabulary!

1487
I believe that we are again being bounced into further constitutional change. But this time, I believe that the monarchy will be one of the targets for attack. Therefore, to come to my noble friend's point, it is important that it is not possible to use as future ammunition the idea that, while everyone else has to put up with illegal traders and nothing is done about it, in the case of the Royal Parks a special Bill was rushed through Parliament with a guillotine Motion in another place. The production of a report on the workings of the legislation will be helpful to other parts of the country where a similar problem arises. That is the thinking behind my amendment. Instead of being attacked as élitist, the passage of this legislation could be seen as a public service. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Briefly, I accept—
Lord Strabolgi: Before the Front Bench?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I was not intending to pre-empt the noble Lord. As this is Committee, I merely intended to give a response. However, I always give way to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
Lord Strabolgi: I am sorry to have to disagree with my noble friend. I served under him in the 1974–79 government and he was a very fine Chief Whip. I was puzzled about the amendment and his reason for tabling it. I am afraid that most of his speech has not illuminated me.
St James's Park, the main park where there is a problem, was laid out by John Nash in the early years of the 19th century on behalf of George IV. But that was almost the last connection with the monarchy and the Royal Family, which seems to be exercising my noble friend.
At present, the Royal Parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency, which comes under the Department of the Environment. The Bill is necessary in order to control the itinerant traders who have proliferated in St James's Park in recent times. Almost 20 can now be counted. They are unlicensed. They sell hot food, mostly sausages cooked in cheap and bad fat, which makes a dreadful smell and pollutes the most beautiful of all the parks. Indeed, St James's is probably one of the most beautiful parks in the world. Not only are the smells unpleasant; the food itself is dangerous and unhealthy. It is sometimes bought by unsuspecting tourists who, I am afraid, may suffer from it.
The Bill closes a loophole in the legislation. At present, Westminster City Council has the right to control such traders in the streets around the park, but it has no control over the park itself. The council can impose a fine, but it is derisory. Most of the traders are controlled by one small company. They are often refugees and others who have entered the country illegally.
1488
My noble friend's amendment is unnecessary. All Acts are reviewed from time to time. Subsection (3)(a) of the proposed new clause states that,
"the report shall contain details of … the number of prosecutions and convictions".
If there are any convictions, it will surely mean that the legislation was necessary. If there are none, I hope that the noble Lord will not come forward and say that it should be rescinded. It is probable that the Government could themselves issue a report after a certain period to see how the legislation was working. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I appreciate the good intentions which lie behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cocks. Although he did not speak at Second Reading, I am aware that he was present throughout and listened to the debate. Therefore, he will be aware that I and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, are keen to close a loophole whereby currently it is impossible for people who push trolleys around the Royal Parks, as opposed to the owners, to be prosecuted as a result of the case of Kol Curri last May.
I made it clear during Second Reading that I wished the Bill a fair wind. I hope that the Government are able to provide a response to the request of the noble Lord without the need for anything to be put on the face of the Bill. We on this Front Bench cannot support an amendment that requires the Bill to return to the Commons, thus lengthening the time taken before the Bill becomes law. As an individual, I have given my word to the Friends of the Royal Parks Forum that I shall do all in my power, within the rules of the House, to give the Bill a fair wind. I seek to keep my word in all cases. Like the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, will be minded to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cocks will understand if I respond to the amendment rather than to those parts of his speech which did not refer to it. I assure my noble friend that these are not unprecedented powers. The powers proposed under the Bill are already available to the City of Westminster under the City of Westminster Act 1999. One of the reasons that matters have become worse in the Royal Parks is that illegal traders have moved there from Westminster, where the controls are stricter.
The Government want to review the operation of the legislation after it has been in operation for, say, 18 months to assess both its effectiveness in the Royal Parks and any impact outside them. I am happy to give my noble friend an assurance now that such a report will be prepared and that its conclusions will be announced to both Houses. My noble friend may wish to table a Question in the House when the time comes. In the meantime, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: In response to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, I did not like his reference to

1489
serving under me. I always thought that he served with me as part of a great team. I thank the noble Baroness for her observations and completely understand her position. I also thank the Minister for giving me the assurance that I seek. The position is most satisfactory, and I am sure that it will assist people in other parts of the country who face the same problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Utilities Bill
3.23 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 8 [Payments by licence holders relating to new arrangements]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert (", or of preparations for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 2. Both amendments concern Clause 8 which gives the authority powers to modify payment conditions in licences so that the ongoing costs of the authority and council can be recovered. It has always been our intention that any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in setting up the authority or council should also be recoverable from licence holders. This category of expenses is identified in Clause 8(3) of the Bill. Amendment No. 1 puts beyond doubt that the authority's ability to modify payment conditions in Clause 8(4) encompasses the powers to make modifications so that any costs incurred by the Secretary of State can be recovered.
The second amendment helps to ensure a smooth transition from the old to the new funding arrangements. For this to happen new payment conditions need to be in place from the date of the establishment of the new bodies. The difficulty is that Clause 8(6) requires the authority to consult licensees before modifying licences. Clearly, until the authority exists it is unable to carry out the consultation itself. If new licence conditions are to be in place from the outset, provision must be made to permit the directors general or the Secretary of State, or both, to carry out the necessary consultation. The amendment makes the necessary provision for early consultation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 2, at end insert—
("() Any consultation undertaken by the Director General of Gas Supply, the Director General of Electricity Supply or the Secretary of State before the commencement of subsection (6) shall be as effective for the purposes of that subsection as if undertaken by the Authority after that time.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Objectives and duties under 1986 Act]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6, line 20, after ("of") insert ("existing and future").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with Amendment No. 3 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 10. At Committee stage I moved Amendment No. 31 to insert in Clauses 9 and 13, which set out the objectives and duties under the Gas and Electricity Acts, a reference to sustainable development. In that I was supported by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford and the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Hardy of Wath. The Minister gave his reasons why this should not appear on the face of the Bill, even though sustainability is one of the objectives of government policy. As an alternative, I propose that the reference to existing and future consumers in subsection (6) appears in subsection (1) so as to give it added prominence. I hope that this small drafting amendment, which goes some way to achieve my objective, is acceptable. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe that Amendment No. 3 is necessary. When one uses the word "consumers" as it appears here it means any consumers at any time. I do not believe that "existing and future" is at all necessary.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I regret to say that I disagree with both noble Lords. The Bill already makes reference to existing and future consumers at lines 25 and 26 on page 7 and lines 36 and 37 on page 10. That is deliberate and explicit, because we support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The Government want sustainable development to be a serious consideration in the protection of consumers, which means that it is right to say explicitly that we are concerned about present as well as future generations.
Our difficulty lies with the effect of the amendment. I understand the desire to emphasise that the authority and the Secretary of State have a duty to existing as well as future consumers. It is an important principle and one which we have been careful to make clear on the face of the Bill.
The reference to future consumers removes any doubt that steps can be taken to promote energy efficiency, providing a long-term benefit to consumers in terms of lower monthly bills that offsets any marginal increase in unit price. It enables the promotion of renewables technology that will help ensure continuity of supply in years to come as fossil

1491
fuel reserves dwindle. And it helps explain why it is in the interests of consumers that energy companies are able to attract the capital they need to maintain the infrastructure for which they are responsible. But this principle is already clearly stated in Clauses 9 and 13 in the subsections which Amendments Nos. 6 and 10 would remove. Those amendments would add nothing of substance. They simply move the reference to "existing and future" to the place in which the term "consumers" first appears.
What these amendments would do, however, is to cast doubt over whether the broad definition of consumer applies to all the other references to "consumers" in Clauses 9 and 13. Not counting the subsections containing the definition, the term "consumer" appears no fewer than four times in each of the two clauses. What meaning is to be given to that term on the six occasions on which, by these amendments, the words "existing and future" are not to be inserted?
The amendments would leave this in doubt. The definition of "consumers" which they remove is clear: that the broad construction should apply to each and every use of that term in Clauses 9 and 13. The definition thereby provides a consistency within those clauses that would be lost if the proposed amendments were made. There is also the question of preserving consistency with the similar definition of "consumers" in Clause 17 which applies to the clauses setting out the functions of the new consumer council. One does not give prominence to something by putting it earlier in a clause. One gives effect to it by having a definition section which by parliamentary convention comes towards the end of a clause.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, if the Minister had not answered the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I would have done so now by saying that if the word "consumers" had the meaning the noble Lord gave it, the Government would not have introduced the definition in the later part of the Bill.
I regret that the proposed change has not been accepted. However, I am glad that again we have had firm assurance from Government that they subscribe fully to the principle of sustainability. They consider that they have done that by the wording in the Bill. I do not, therefore, insist on my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 35, at end insert ("; and
(c) the need to promote energy efficiency").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I drew attention to the importance of energy efficiency and endeavoured to give it more prominence in the Bill. The proposed amendment was not accepted by the Minister. I now propose a different amendment. It seeks also to give greater prominence to energy efficiency by making it a major consideration of the Secretary of State and the authority in furthering that
1492
principal objective. I hope that the noble Lord will he able to accept the amendment in this revised form. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, about the importance of creating energy efficiency. In his lifetime and through his many activities the noble Lord has sought to do just that.
However, we are dealing with the principal objective of the new authority. I believe that one should keep the principal objectives basic and simple. It is not helpful to add to the basic objective set out in the clause as drafted. Clauses 70 and 99 provide adequately for requirements for energy efficiency targets under statutory regulation. I should have thought that that provision would meet the noble Lord's wishes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we had a useful debate on the positioning of the authority's duty to promote energy efficiency. My noble friend Lord Borrie recalls it well. I am sorry that I was not able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, at that time of the appropriateness of leaving that duty subject to the principal objective to protect the interests of consumers.
As I said then, regulation is intended to mimic the effects of competition by putting downward pressure on costs and by creating incentives to improve, efficiency and the quality of service to consumers. It is, right, therefore, that the authority's general duties should have an economic focus—that is what this Bill is about—one which is primarily concerned with the price and quality of service offered to consumers. That is why the authority's principal objective is to protect the interests of consumers.
But we recognise the importance of encouraging energy efficiency. That is why, subject to the duty to further the principal objective, the authority is given a duty to promote efficiency in the use of gas and electricity. Let me dwell for a moment on what that duty entails. The authority has no choice as to whether it should comply. It must exercise its statutory functions in the manner it considers best calculated to promote the efficient use of energy. To that extent it is the same as the duty to further the principal objective. The only difference is that in the event of a conflict between energy efficiency and the interests of consumers, the interests of consumers present and future, as we have agreed, should prevail.
But how often will the interests of consumers conflict with any sensible measure to promote energy efficiency? The interests of consumers include the interests of future consumers. Measures to promote energy efficiency are in the longer-term interests of consumers as they result in decreased energy consumption and, consequently, lower monthly bills. For that reason, it seems unlikely that a measure to promote energy efficiency could ever be resisted on the ground that it conflicted with the duty to further the principal objective. If a measure were so costly or ineffective as to be contrary to both the long and short-term interests of consumers, it seems right that the

1493
interests of consumers should prevail. No matter which way one looks at it, the duty to promote energy efficiency is best left where it is.
There are also difficulties with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. They would require the authority to further its principal objective,
"having regard to the need to promote energy efficiency".
My difficulty with the amendments is that I am uncertain where the "need" to promote energy efficiency comes from. It can be contrasted with the straightforward duty to promote the efficient use of gas and electricity, as required by Clauses 9 and 13.
It is true that there is a requirement to have regard to the need to secure that all reasonable demands for gas and electricity are met and that licence holders are able to finance the activities which are the subject of statutory obligations. But these obligations are very different from the promotion of energy efficiency. They stem from the regulators' primary duties under existing legislation—the "demand duty" and "finance duty". They form key aspects of the interests of consumers which must be satisfied if those interests are to be protected. The use of the word "need" in the formulation of these obligations reflects a statutory recognition of the unique status of these aspects of the interests of consumers. It is not an appropriate formulation for an obligation to promote energy efficiency which, important though it is, cannot be said to have the same fundamental status in defining the interests of consumers.
I do not wish to say more about any deficiencies in the wording of the amendment. I prefer to rest my argument against the amendment on the points I made at the beginning. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to draw comfort from the strength of the wording of the duty to promote efficiency in the use of gas and electricity and not to press the amendments.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for their comments. The essential difference between the noble Lord and myself is that I regard energy efficiency as an intrinsic and essential part of the interests of the consumers. I do not see that it should be "subject to" the interest of consumers; it is a part of it.
In the latter stages of debates in Committee we dealt with the problem of fuel poverty. In this country, 4 million to 5 million people live in houses so poorly equipped and so inefficient in energy usage that they suffer seriously. We have proportionately a higher mortality rate in winter than any other country in western Europe. I should have thought that the issue is an essential part of the interests of consumers. I do not understand why it is made "subject to" those interests.
However, I take comfort from the other provisions of the Bill, as the Minister asked. I accept that the Government consider energy efficiency important but regret that they are not prepared to give the intrinsic
1494
status I should have preferred. In the light of the assurances we have received, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 21, at end insert—
("(c) to safeguard the interests of consumers by securing a diverse and viable long-term energy supply:").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 5 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 9 and immediately own up to an unfortunate glitch that has occurred. It was our intention that the amendments should be identical but for reasons I do not understand the word "viable" has disappeared from the second one. I believe that the Minister understands that our intention was that they should be identical. The amendments are supported by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding who, unfortunately, cannot be here today. I hope that they will also be supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra.
I am bound to declare an interest as the joint vice chairman of the All Party Group on the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry and as a former non-executive director of Elf Exploration, which is now to be subsumed into the newly merged Total Fina Elf,
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Jenkin raised concerns about the impact of downstream regulation on the upstream industry, which could in turn affect the viability and diversity of the energy market, and the implication which that could have for consumers and a competitive energy market. He sought to discover the Government's view as to why the regulators should not also be advised to secure diverse and viable energy sources as that would clearly be in the interests of present and future consumers.
In reply, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated that the responsibility for securing a diverse and viable energy market was for government. I agree with that—indeed, I applaud it and hope that it will continue to be the Government's position. But I want to make a couple of points.
First, if that is the broad policy of government—and I hope that he is not unintentionally fettering that wide policy-discretion of the Secretary of State—I am a little surprised by the provisions of new Clause 9. The clause states that it is the principal objective not only of the gas and electricity markets authority but also of the Secretary of State to carry out its functions. It would be helpful to have the Minister's reassurance, if nothing else, that in framing the provision in that way there is no unintended fettering of that wide discretion.
However, a further point remains to be addressed. Why should it not be a requirement that the utilities regulator has a similar obligation, as that would clearly support the principal duty imposed upon him in protecting the consumers' interests? That would be consistent with all that the Government seek to secure.
The Minister went on to say that the underpinning of security and diversity would be provided by a competitive market. I believe that in broad measure that is an accurate assessment. However, that will be

1495
the case only if the regulation of the downstream market does not, perhaps unintentionally, create barriers to investment and activity in the upstream sector. I believe that if the Government want to secure that objective, which we share, any barriers to investment upstream should be held to a minimum. In such circumstances, it would seem appropriate that as the regulator looks to his regulation of the downstream sector of the industry he should understand what might be the consequences of that regulation on the upstream.
In Committee, the Minister went on to make a reasonable observation that the future energy policy of this country will increasingly be conducted in the context of global and European markets. I am clear that the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of liberalisation in the context of the energy market in Europe. That began in the previous government and I acknowledge that it has successfully been continued under this Government. However, while some member states have been less than enthusiastic in participating in what the United Kingdom would regard as appropriate, it is clear that the Commission's ambitions for a single energy market in Europe are to be achieved by supporting security of supply across Europe. That is a commendable objective.
The amendments, by directly linking the interests of consumers to a diverse and viable energy market, will support the Government's ambitions for the United Kingdom energy market and support the EU's position for securing the supply of energy sources. They do not seek to support one energy source over another, but it should be remembered that our indigenous offshore oil and gas industry can, despite some people's fears, continue to play an important part in our energy market while also supporting thousands of jobs in some of the remoter parts of Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is the largest offshore industry in Europe and while it has reached a mature stage of development it is still of the view that more recoverable reserves remain to be produced than the 26 billion barrels of oil equivalent produced to date. The industry estimates that by 2010 some 57 per cent of the 3 million barrels of oil equivalent produced per day will be provided by gas.
The achievement of that offshore vision and objective by the industry would seem to have direct benefits for consumers. In those circumstances, it is particularly desirable that in every respect the regulator understands what can be achieved for the country as a whole. Our amendments would place an obligation of GEMA to safeguard the interests of consumers by ensuring that the energy market is both diverse and viable. It is a commonsense obligation and, as it supports the Government's declared objectives, I hope that it will be acceptable to them. It would introduce transparency and clarity to the role and remit of the regulator in protecting consumer interests. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord deal with a point that puzzles
1496
me? He made a persuasive speech about diversity, but I should have thought that an essential component would be coal. However, the noble and learned Lord did not mention coal once. He mentioned oil and gas, but not coal. I draw his attention to the fact that his government virtually closed down the coal industry, leaving only 15 pits in the country. There is no doubt that some people prefer coal as a fuel, but is the noble and learned Lord saying that coal is not necessary or that it is of such minor significance that it need not be dealt with?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we return to the interests of consumers. I fail to see why in the Bill, whose main objective is to serve the interests of consumers, we should not try to give a good definition of those interests. They must comprehend a diverse and viable long-term energy supply. To have to be dependent in due course on only one source of energy would be dangerous and no one would welcome it.
In Committee, we were told that market forces will provide the solution. I do not agree entirely. The Bill is itself a demonstration of the extent to which the Government feel that they must intervene for other reasons against market forces. They are intervening seriously to ensure the development of renewables. That intervention is necessary because it would not happen under market forces. They are also committed to supporting combined heat and power to a greater extent than would be the case under market forces.
Perhaps I may turn to coal. We hope that, in an amendment which I shall move later and which I hope will receive widespread support, clean-coal technology will fit into the diversity of supply. Therefore, I should be very disappointed if, yet again, the noble Lord were to tell us that this is clearly part of government policy and that there is no need to state it. I believe that this is such an essential element in the interests of consumers that it should be stated. Therefore, I very much hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will be prepared to accept the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, on this occasion I am pleased to be in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and I gladly support the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend to which the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, added his name.
I was not intending to add to what my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie has already said. However, in spite of his knowledge and experience of fuel matters, I feel that the noble Lord. Lord Dormand of Easington, did not have his finger on the point when he referred to Clause 1. It seems to me that Clause 1 is so unspecific that it does not deal with the very necessary argument put forward in Amendments Nos. 5 and 9. As noble Lords may realise, I am all against unnecessary detail being added to any Bill. However, I believe that in Amendments Nos. 5 and 9 some foresight is being shown which should be expressed in the Bill. Therefore, I gladly support those amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we had a useful and full debate on the issue of security of supply

1497
in Committee. I am sorry that I do not seem to have convinced the House that security of supply is properly dealt with in the framework of the Bill as it currently stands. As I said then, the Bill is concerned with the economic regulation of gas and electricity. It is not an energy or an energy policy Bill. I am glad to have the explicit recognition of that point by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser.
Before I proceed, perhaps I may say that, because that is the case, we are in no way fettering the freedom of the Secretary of State and, as Clauses 9 and 13 are amendments to the Gas Act and Electricity Act, they are in the context of the Long Title of those Acts. They are part of utilities regulation, whereas the discretion of the Secretary of State to maintain security of supply goes much wider than that and is not in any way fettered by the provisions in this Bill.
However, security of supply is indeed the responsibility of government as a whole. In order to achieve it, the Government must exercise a wide range of policy instruments. Relevant issues range from securing properly functioning utilities markets (which is the subject of this Bill), to the management of the UK continental shelf, to securing stability and access to overseas sources of energy, and of course, to the diversity of supply to which my noble friend Lord Dormand referred. It has always been our policy that there should be diversity of supply, on or under land, of domestic sources and not only of the offshore interests to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, referred.
The bulk of these issues falls far outside the scope of utilities legislation. However, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that one element is to establish appropriate economic regulation of the gas and electricity utilities. That is why the Bill makes it absolutely clear that the principal objective to protect the interests of consumers applies to both existing and future consumers. That is why there is a duty to secure that all reasonable demands for electricity and, so far as it is economical to do so, for gas are met. In the context of utilities legislation, that is security of supply. Therefore, the hierarchy of duties in the Bill already contains all the duties, relevant to the purpose of this legislation, which are necessary for security of supply.
As I said in Committee, it follows that amendments such as this are a distraction and would serve to confuse rather than enhance the framework of obligations and duties under the legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, said that in Committee I answered that market forces would provide the solution. No, my Lords; I know the place of market forces and they are certainly important in many aspects of the Bill. However, I did not say that market forces could be relied on to preserve security of supply. Market forces play their part—an enormously important part—as a complement to the regulation of the utilities industries, but certainly the wider responsibilities of the Government are a recognition of the benefits and of the limits of market forces.
1498
I do not believe that the amendments will add to the Bill and I seriously consider that they will confuse the orders which we give to the utility industry and its regulators.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, first, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that I hoped that he would understand that he should support what we are promoting. I may have given insufficient emphasis to it, but I made the point that these amendments do not seek to support one energy source over another. Perhaps I did not expressly use the word "coal". However, I certainly recognise the great importance of coal as an energy source within the United Kingdom. We are not saying that the oil and gas aspects of energy are in any way supreme. All sources should come under the duty that we wish to see imposed on GEMA.
I am not entirely persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It seems to me that the point comes to this, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made it well. If, downstream, one imposes a number of regulations on the industry, it would seem almost inevitable that by so regulating one is affecting decisions taken upstream. We seek to ensure only that when the regulator takes perfectly proper decisions relating to the downstream activity in the oil, gas or electricity world, he should have regard to what their impact might be on vitally important UK investment decisions offshore. That is all that we wanted to achieve. We certainly did not want him to extend his regulatory remit upstream. We wished simply for there to be a clearer understanding on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the Minister of the day will have regard to just those considerations. I suppose that I am reassured to know that. But I still have some difficulty in grasping why he does not wish the regulator downstream to understand more clearly the possible impact of the regulatory decisions that he takes. However, I imagine that we shall be bashing our heads against the government wall for a very long time, and I do not propose to press the amendment now. With the leave of the House, I seek to withdraw Amendment No. 5.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Objectives and duties under 1989 Act]:
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Acquisition and review of information]:
4 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 14, line 7, at end insert—
("(8) Nothing in this section shall inhibit the appointment of lay members to committees.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the consumers council. My Amendment No. 67 in Committee was about the appointment of lay members in the regional organisation of the proposed consumers council. We were advised that

1499
the council was shortly to respond to the consultation on its organisation. That response has now appeared. On page 11, the report says that:
"there was considerable support for the role played by lay representatives of customers".
However, it does not say how that will be done. I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to enlighten us. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government fully accept that lay members of committees—that is, individuals who are not employed by or otherwise connected with the council—can have a valuable role in broadening the range of experience and expertise on which the council can draw. They can have a useful role in assisting the council in its work on behalf of consumers. I declare my past interest as the husband of the former chairman of the national Gas Consumers Council in the late 1970s. We have taken care in Clause 18 and the relevant paragraphs of Schedule 2 to give the council all the powers that it needs to be able to set up committees with lay members. That answers the strict wording of the amendment, but I know that the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was to get me to say a bit more about our intentions rather than to press the amendment.
The Government's view is that it is primarily for the council to decide how many committees it needs and the role that they should play. I shall explain how the council intends to develop its plans.
The Department of Trade and Industry has already identified the chairman designate of the new council, Ann Robinson. When the full council has been appointed—the target date is November this year—I understand that she envisages that one of its first priorities will be to consider the establishment of committees.
There are a number of important issues to be resolved, with decisions to be taken on how many committees there should be and the precise role that they should play on behalf of the council, so that their input complements rather than overlaps with the work of the full-time staff in the regional offices. Decisions are needed on what sort of people should be appointed to committees and the links between committees and the work of other local organisations. The committees will certainly contain lay persons. That is important, so that the council has access to a wider range of experience and expertise.
I understand that Ann Robinson favours the appointment of individuals with a professional interest in addressing and dealing with consumer-related issues. That might include individuals from trading standards offices, citizens advice bureaux, trade and commerce bodies, and caring and charitable agencies. That would have the benefit of making the exchange of information and links between the council and local organisations more effective.
Those will be matters for the council when it has been appointed, but it is worth stressing that the council's plan for the committees will be subject to
1500
proper public scrutiny, as Ann Robinson intends to draw up and consult on the council's proposals for committees before the end of this year. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others will have a full opportunity to comment and offer suggestions on the plans. At that stage, assuming that the council is appointed in November, it will have some practical experience of how its regional office teams are operating—I have already answered a Written Question saying that there will be seven regional offices—and will be in a better position to identify the most suitable role for committees and their lay members.
I hope that that reassures the noble Lord and that he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I am greatly impressed by the Minister's modesty about his wife, who was a very distinguished chairman. I do not think that anyone has yet paid tribute to the outgoing gas and electricity consumer councils, which have been blessed with very special leadership. I am very grateful to both of them.
I am suspicious of professional consumers. Ordinary consumers know best and I am concerned that they should have access. Their views as consumers, rather than as professionals, should be taken into account. Their access should be given due consideration.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. The chairmen of the existing consumer councils are still in post. I am sure that it will be appropriate to pay tribute to their services when their term of office comes to an end.
I take the noble Baroness's point about the direct representation of consumers rather than professional representatives. I am sure that Ann Robinson will pay attention to that. Perhaps the noble Baroness would like to take part in the consultation. She is well qualified to express her views.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I should like to raise one issue that arises from the Minister's answer. I am grateful to him for including me in the circulation of the Parliamentary Answer that he mentioned, which said where the offices will be set up around the country. As I understand it, one of the offices is to be in Cardiff. The natural assumption is that it will cover only Wales. Concern has been expressed that it might serve a wider area. Is that the case?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The intention is that the Bournemouth office will cover the South West.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as the Minister said, the purpose of the amendment was to elicit information. I am most obliged to him for the information that he has provided, particularly on adequate lay membership of the councils. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Provision of information to consumers]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 16, line 1, leave out from first (""complaints"") to ("to") in line 4 and insert ("means complaints made directly").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 20 requires the council to publish statistical information about customer complaints, including those made directly to licence holders or anyone carrying on activity on their behalf. It will be difficult for the council to achieve accurate, consistent and comparable counts of complaints received by companies, particularly telephone complaints, as there is ample scope for legitimate differences of interpretation on what constitutes an inquiry or a request for action or information and what might be regarded as a complaint.
For example, does the first call that a consumer makes to an electricity company advising that the power has failed constitute a complaint? If the consumer called back after four hours to say that nothing had been done, that would be a complaint, but what if they called back after 10 minutes? The amendment would restrict the obligation to the publication and analysis of complaints received by the authority and the council, as that will provide the only robust and equitable means of comparison of the customer service performance of different companies. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I find the amendment unhelpful. It would deprive consumers of statistical information about a small number—or perhaps even a large number—of consumer complaints. The consumer council which will come into existence will no doubt receive many complaints and will have its own ways of devising what is a complaint and what are the differences between a complaint on the one hand and a request for information on the other. But electricity and gas suppliers and distributors will also have their own ways of doing that. If they need guidance, no doubt the new consumer council can give them guidance in order to achieve across the country some measure of accord on how to distinguish consumer complaints from requests for information.
However, if you cut out of the statistics complaints that have gone to the electricity distributor or supplier and not to the consumer council, then we in this House, the general public and consumers generally will have a deficient and defective piece of information as regards how many complaints, and the details and types of complaints and so on, are being made.
I recognise the difficulty which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has mentioned but it seems to me a difficulty of distinguishing between complaints and information which can be resolved by agreement between the companies and with guidance from the consumer council.
Lord Renton: My Lords, up to a point, one must acknowledge that the public, as the noble Lord said, should have the right to make complaints. But surely it is necessary for us to consider to whom the complaint
1502
should be made, bearing in mind that the responsibility for registering those complaints will lie upon the council.
As the Bill stands, complaints can be made to various other bodies, including,
"electricity suppliers and electricity distributors (or anyone carrying on activities on their behalf".
How on earth is the council to be able to make a correct, comprehensive and formal report unless complaints are made to it?
It may be that the answer is for the Bill to be amended on Third Reading to ensure that if complaints are not made directly to the council but must be registered by the council, the people to whom the complaints are made should have a duty to report them to the council. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend has done a valuable service in drawing attention to this problem. It may well be that between now and Third Reading, the Government should reconsider the whole question.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Clause 20 places the new consumer council under a duty to publish statistical information about complaints made by consumers against certain consumer-facing utility companies. I say immediately that the Bill provides what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, seeks; namely, that in order to collect those statistics and to publish that statistical information, the council has a right to demand information from the consumer-facing utility companies. So no amendment will be necessary on Third Reading.
As with the other provisions of Clause 20, the intention is to give the council the role of providing information that consumers need to make informed decisions about their gas and electricity suppliers. It is also intended to provide a spur to companies to maintain and improve levels of performance.
For the purposes of the duty to publish complaints statistics, the term "complaints" is defined to include complaints made to the companies concerned. The amendment would specifically remove that part of "complaints". I accept that to demand that information from the companies would put pressure on them to improve their performance. That is why we have included such complaints within the scope of this duty. But just because a restricted disclosure of complaints statistics would go part way towards helping consumers to form judgments is no reason to deprive consumers of the full picture. I believe that excluding complaints made direct to companies would seriously reduce the effectiveness of the provisions of Clause 20.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, will agree that the whole pattern of consumer protection means that the complaints are made first to the company of which the complaint is made, whether it is a gas, electricity or bus company. You try to get the company to put it right first before you go to the consumer council.

1503
As to how those complaints are registered, which appears to be the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, there are innumerable examples in both the private and public sectors of distinguishing between complaints which should be registered and which should go on to be recorded as evidence of poor performance and those which are simply routine. When a phone call comes in, you do not immediately say, "Is it an inquiry or a complaint?" You register who is making the call, the time of the call, whether a call has been made before and what the call is about. In other words, it is analysed. As a market research consultant, I have taken part in providing an analysis form which enables people who want to register customer complaints, whether in the private or public sector, to do so effectively.
It is not easy to do that, but it is certainly not impossible. To cut it out altogether would really be to take away a very important role of the consumer council, which is to provide a complete analysis of the interface between electricity and gas companies and their customers. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, will not press the amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will elaborate on what he said. I accept that complaints made to the various companies which he has mentioned should be borne in mind. But is it really fair on the council to have to register complaints if the companies are under no obligation to report them to the council?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, companies are under an obligation to report them and they are under an obligation to report them in the form which the council requires.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am extremely disappointed by the Minister's response to the amendment. The industry feels strongly that restricting publication and analysis of complaints to those received by the authority and the council would provide the only robust and equitable means of comparison between companies in terms of their customer service performance.
Indeed, I quote from a letter addressed to the Utilities Bill team at the Department of Trade and Industry from representatives of the Electricity Association following the Committee stage. It states:
"Even against the assumption that the new Council will publish guidelines as to how a complaint is to be defined and recorded, there is still ample scope for interpretation between an enquiry or request for action/information and what might be regarded as a complaint. This is particularly so if telephone complaints are to be included, as they probably will be, given the growing numbers of customers who are using the telephone".
I am surprised also by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. The letter goes on to state:
"If companies are receiving significant numbers of initial complaints, but resolving issues quickly so that complaints are not being referred to OFGEM or the Council, surely that is to their credit! If they are generally offering a low standard of service, as the Minister suggests, that will very quickly be demonstrated
1504
through a whole raft of indices including Guaranteed and Overall Standards of Service, performance monitoring of Codes of Practice and Quality of Supply data. Even in the complaints arena alone, no poorly performing company will be able to 'firefight' to the extent necessary to ensure that all first time complaints are satisfactorily resolved quickly enough to avoid references to the Council. Customers can of course vote with their feet, as increasing numbers are now doing, and leave the offending supplier. Competition is a powerful deterrent to poor service".
I am not happy and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 154.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Lucas, L.

Arran, E.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L. [Teller]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Attlee, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Blatch, B.

Montrose, D.

Boardman, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Northbrook, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

O'Cathain, B.

Buscombe, B.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Byford, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Caithness, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Palmer, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Patten, L.

Chalfont, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Coe, L.

Prior, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Cuckney, L.

Reay, L.

Rees, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Renton, L.

Denham, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Seccombe, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Sharples, B.

Elles, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Flather, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Glentoran, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hanham, B.

Tebbit, L.

Haslam, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Tombs, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Higgins, L.

Vivian, L.

Home, E.

Waddington, L.

Hooper, B.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Weatherill, L.

Kimball, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Andrews, B.

Addington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Amos, B.

Bach, L.

Ampthill, L.

Barker, B.

1505

Barnett, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Berkeley, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Billingham, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Blease, L.

Borrie, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Bragg, L.

McNally, L.

Brennan, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brett, L.

Marsh, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Burlison, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Chandos, V.

Mishcon, L.

Christopher, L.

Molloy, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Nicol, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Orme, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Parekh, L.

Crawley, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Paul, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Peston, L.

David, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Desai, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Dholakia, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dixon, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Donoughue, L.

Rennard, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dubs, L.

Roper, L.

Elder, L.

Russell, E.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Ezra, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sharman, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Filkin, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gale, B.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Gavron, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Geraint, L.

Simon, V.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Gilbert, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Goodhart, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Tenby, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thornton, B.

Harrison, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Healey, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Uddin, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Varley, L.

Hooson, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Warner, L.

Hoyle, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Whitaker, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Whitty, L.

Islwyn, L.

Wigoder, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Wilkins, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kins of West Bromwich, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Laird, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Layard, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.30 p.m.
Clause 22 [Complaints]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("of gas").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 19, 65, 76, 82 to 87, 90 and 98. These are for the most part minor drafting amendments which adjust the terminology used to refer to persons authorised by a licence or exemption in a number of clauses in the Bill, and introduce more consistency between gas and electricity provisions.
Amendments Nos. 82 to 87 to Clause 98 are additionally intended to make clear that, in any scheme introduced to help disadvantaged gas customers, adjustments may be made to the charges of authorised gas shippers as well as of suppliers and transporters. We were advised by the regulator that without such amendments a scheme could be more difficult to operate effectively. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 18:

Page 16, line 44, leave out ("authorised person") and insert ("person authorised by a licence or exemption").

Page 18, leave out lines 12 to 14.

Page 18, line 23, leave out ("of electricity").

Page 18, line 28, leave out ("authorised person") and insert ("person authorised by a licence or exemption").

Page 19, leave out lines 43 to 45.

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 23 [Investigations by the Council]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 21, leave out lines 29 and 30.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Provision of information to the Council]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 23, line 13, at end insert—
("(5) Nothing in this section authorises the Council to direct the Authority to supply information which is subject to the restrictions on disclosure contained in section 55 of the Competition Act 1998 nor authorises the Authority to comply with such a direction.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 21. Section 55 of the Competition Act 1998 restricts the disclosure by the competition authorities of information obtained under that Act regarding the affairs of any individual or business to "designated persons" in the performance of "relevant functions". Typically, those are other regulators exercising their sectoral regulatory powers. If the council, which is not within that pool of designated persons, was able to obtain information which it would not otherwise be

1507
entitled to via the exercise by the authority of its competition powers, it would mean that information could be disclosed without being subject to the safeguards provided under the Competition Act. It would also undermine existing arrangements for the separation of the regulator's Competition Act powers and sectoral powers. Amendment No. 20 prohibits the council from seeking, and the authority from disclosing, information protected by Section 55 of the Competition Act.
Turning to Amendment No. 21, Clause 27 gives the Secretary of State the power to specify by regulations the types of information which need not be supplied to the council. The extent to which certain categories of sensitive information, such as trade secrets and legally privileged communications, will be protected will therefore be determined only after the Bill receives Royal Assent. While the Government consulted on their proposals for regulations before the Bill was published, those proposals were only in outline and there is no obligation to consult on the form of the regulations themselves. Amendment No. 21 provides transparency in the exercise of the Secretary of State's power by requiring him to consult interested parties before making any regulations under this clause. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 in turn because they are not quite the same.
As noble Lords will be aware, in March the Government published a consultation document on categories of information which the authority and the licensees should be entitled to withhold from the consumer council. Information obtained by the authority other than from licensees under the powers it has as gas and electricity regulator was in the second of the classes in the document. Information obtained under the Competition Act 1998 is a subset of that group.
There are a significant number of Acts under which information could be obtained where that information might subsequently pass to the authority. I see no good reason to single out the Competition Act 1998 for explicit treatment here. In any case, for reasons I am about to give, I do not believe information will reach the council anyway. Under the regulations which we are to make, and on which we consulted, information such as information to which Section 55 of the Competition Act applies will be information which the authority is not obliged to pass to the council under Clause 24 of the Bill. The question, therefore, is whether it could do so.
The Bill does not add the consumer council to those bodies to whom Competition Act information, if I may call it that, may be passed under exceptions to the prohibition in that Act on disclosing such information. The prohibition on disclosure of information in this Bill expressly provides in Clause 104(11) that information obtained by the authority in the exercise of its concurrent competition functions is subject to the Competition Act prohibition on disclosure, and
1508
not to the one in the Bill. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that Amendment No. 20 is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 21 would add a requirement to consult the authority, the council and licensees' representatives on regulations under Clause 27. Clause 27 contains two regulation-making powers: in subsection (1), a power to set out the sorts of information the authority and licensees need not supply to the council, or the council supply to the authority; and in subsection (3), a power to appoint an adjudicator to determine disputes about whether information requested by the council or the authority can be withheld.
Taking the regulations under subsection (1) first, we have already sought views on what the regulations under Clause 27(1) should contain. We are now analysing representations received and will announce our future intentions in due course. In this case, therefore, the requirement is unnecessary and if there were to be subsequent amendments we would consult on those as well.
The House may recall that when we introduced subsection (3) of Clause 27 I noted that the information commissioner is a possible adjudicator under regulations. She is the front-runner, as a result of representations from various quarters in recent months. If we proceed to make regulations appointing her, I am not sure what more there would be to consult about. An express obligation to consult might oblige us to delay introducing regulations in order to comply with the duty and I do not believe there would be any benefit from that.
In those circumstances, without in any way being antagonistic to the thinking behind the amendments, I hope they will not be pressed.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full reply in regard to both amendments. I shall read what he had to say with care, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Licences authorising supply etc. of electricity]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 28, line 27, leave out ("or condition").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 22, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 33, 34, 68, 79, 94, 97, 121, 122, 123 and 127. This group contains amendments which all relate in some way to the licences and licensing provisions of the Bill.
Amendment No. 22 needs to be considered together with Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 123. The Government and Ofgem, with which we are working closely on the development of new standard conditions of licences, had it in mind to provide that in future provisions in licences as to licence revocation would be conditions. At present they are terms of the licence.

1509
The distinction between "terms" and "conditions" may not be self-evident but it may help if I say that terms of a licence may not be amended without the consent of the individual licenceholder whereas the legislation sets out procedures whereby licence conditions may be modified without such consent.
As well as moving the revocation provisions from one part of the licence to another, we also wanted to take the opportunity when determining standard licence conditions to update the revocation provisions themselves. We have recently completed a major consultation on all the draft standard licence conditions. It has become apparent that the industry is very uneasy about the proposal to move the revocation provisions, but, by and large, is supportive of the substance of the changes we wish to make to the provisions themselves. I might add, by way of an aside, that this is principally a matter for electricity licenceholders as the changes we propose, in the main, would bring electricity licences into line with gas licences.
In recognition of the response we have received, we now propose that revocation provisions remain licence terms; in other words, they may not be amended without the consent of the individual licenceholder. Amendment No. 22 reflects this by removing from Section 6 of the Electricity Act, as amended by Clause 30, a reference to conditions of a licence in the context of the revocation provisions of a licence.
But we still need a vehicle for making the changes to the provisions themselves. We have identified the licensing scheme as the most appropriate vehicle for making these changes. Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 123 give the Secretary of State the power he needs to make these changes when the licensing schemes which Schedule 7 provides for are made.
Amendment No. 23 to Clause 43 and Amendment No. 79 to Clause 88 correct omissions from the Bill. They would ensure that when the Competition Commission considers a reference made to it in connection with a proposal to create a new licensable activity, it would have regard to the same matters as the authority would have regard to in carrying out its functions. The current drafting is incomplete.
The remainder of the amendments in this group are minor and technical and in one or two cases consequential. In the main, they are aimed at correcting or improving the existing drafting of the Bill and raise no issues of substance. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full explanation, although I shall want to read carefully what he has said. I had thought that the Minister would bring forward a further amendment, which, unless I have missed it, he has not included. I am concerned about the following matter. As I understand the scheme of things, it will be for the Secretary of State to set the standard conditions. He may talk to GEMA and reach a view as to what is appropriate but he will set the standard conditions. There are certain circumstances in which GEMA might ask the competition authorities to report on a
1510
matter. That is clearly a desirable provision. However, as I understand the position, under Clause 35 it is open to the authority to modify the standard conditions.
I ask the Minister to consider the following circumstance. Let us consider a standard condition that has been modified by the authority. At some subsequent time the authority takes the view that that modified standard condition has been breached. In those circumstances the authority looks to its powers under what is now Clause 59. As I understand the position, having discovered a breach of a condition in those circumstances, the authority could impose an unlimited fine. In such circumstances where the authority is, as it were, the legislating body in that it can modify the standard conditions, it is the authority that conducts the investigation and acts as jury in determining whether there has been a breach and as a judge in imposing an unlimited fine.
I hope that the Minister will reassure me that in those circumstances, notwithstanding the statement that he made on the first draft of the Bill that reached your Lordships' House, he continues to have no unease that the matter that I have mentioned does not in any way breach the European Convention on Human Rights. I believe that some unease should be felt at a situation where a single authority performs all those different functions. Those functions can only be separated out when the authority decides to refer the matter to the Competition Commission; it is not a matter that that body can address itself. I am uneasy about that situation. I would welcome hearing the Minister say yet again that he is confident that there is no prospect of breaching the European convention in these circumstances.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, is entitled to make the points that he has made. However, he makes them in the context of a series of amendments which should reduce his fears, at least in respect of revocation provisions of a licence. We shall take out what was originally proposed as being conditions of a licence which could, as the noble and learned Lord said, be changed under certain circumstances without consent and make them terms which cannot be changed without consent. To that extent, any change which is being made now gives me greater confidence in asserting—as I did at the beginning of our discussions—that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I hope I may add that I am not surprised that he says he has greater confidence in making that assertion now. What I am trying to ascertain is whether he has complete confidence in making it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I make these statements, as always, on legal advice and that advice has not changed.

1511
The noble and learned Lord makes a legitimate point which deserves a response; namely, that certain standard conditions can be modified without consent. Under certain circumstances a breach of conditions could invoke penalties. I do not call them offences as I do not want to reopen the debate that we had on the then Financial Services and Markets Bill. However, they are penalties.
If the noble and learned Lord is present when we debate Amendment No. 38 and the amendment with which it is grouped, he will hear what we think of unlimited penalties. I shall not weary the House by replying at length to the issue that he raised. However, I shall write to the noble and learned Lord before Third Reading and copy the letter to all other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
We go to extraordinary lengths to set out in the legislation procedures under which licence conditions may be modified without consent. I shall set all that out in the letter and reaffirm my confidence that I have done the right thing in making the declaration that I have.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43 [Altering activities requiring electricity licence]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 46, line 46, at end insert ("; and
() any advice given by the Health and Safety Commission or the Secretary of State under section 3C (advice about health and safety in relation to electricity)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Power to recover expenditure]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 51, leave out lines 42 to 45 and insert—
("(b) a person ("the initial contributor") has made a payment to the distributor in respect of those expenses, the line or plant having been provided for the purpose of making a connection to any premises or distribution system as required by that person."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 25. Both amendments relate to the matter of electricity connections. Amendment No. 24 is perhaps rather obscure at first sight. Indeed, it amends a rather obscure part of the Bill and of the Electricity Act.
When someone requires a connection, they are required to pay for it. But the position need not always be as straightforward as it might appear. I seek to illustrate that point. Suppose that a cottage is built a mile from the nearest electricity distribution line. The owner of the cottage (or, under the Act as it will be amended by this Bill, a supplier acting with that person's consent) would have to pay for a wire to be brought from the nearest distribution line to the meter point in the cottage. Other equipment, such as transformers, might be needed. That is likely to be a significant expense.
Suppose that a couple of years later someone else builds a cottage a hundred yards from the first one and requires an electricity connection. The distribution company will almost certainly make a connection to the second cottage using the wire that was laid to the first cottage. In this case, it is only fair that the person requiring the subsequent connection should bear an appropriate proportion of the cost of the initial connection and that the person who had the initial connection should have his costs abated accordingly. Otherwise, the second person would be free-riding on the first person. I am tempted to call those persons "A" and "B" but I have got away without doing that so far.
This situation is catered for in Section 19 of the Act. That section is being amended by Clause 46 to reflect the separation of supply and distribution. However, the present drafting of the clause inadvertently limits the scope of the provision to the circumstances where the first person requiring the connection—who is called the "initial contributor" in the Bill—is the owner or occupier of the premises connected.
Section 16(1)(a)(i) and (ii) as inserted into the 1989 Act by Clause 44 provides that the person requiring a connection may be either, on the one hand, the owner or occupier of premises or the owner of a distribution system, or, on the other hand, a supplier acting with the consent of such a person.
This amendment widens the scope of Section 19 to include the case where the initial contributor is such a supplier.
Amendment No. 25 is rather more significant. I remind the House of the debate that we had on Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. When I rejected those amendments I said that the Government nevertheless accepted the importance of ensuring that the provisions of Clauses 44 to 48, as they now are, supported the making of terms covering all the matters which should properly be covered in the case of making and maintaining a connection even in the largest and most complex cases.
After further consideration, and as I promised last time, after further discussion with the industry, we concluded that the existing provisions did not quite achieve the effect that we wanted. This amendment is the result. It permits a distributor to require a person requiring a connection to accept any terms which it is reasonable in all the circumstances for that person to accept.
Ostensibly, that is a very wide power. But it needs to be borne in mind that this provision comes within the scope of Section 23 of the Electricity Act 1989, as amended by this Bill. Under that section, in the event of a dispute as to the terms offered by a distributor for the making and maintaining of a connection, either party may refer the matter to an authority for determination. So in the end the matter of whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances for a person to be required to accept a particular term is likely to become a matter for determination by the authority where the term is novel or unusually burdensome.
In the vast majority of connections cases, the terms are likely to be straightforward and to relate to the specific matters described in Section 16A. Only in the larger and more complex cases are the distributors likely to have to rely on the extra scope provided by this amendment.
There is one other aspect to this amendment to which I know the industry attaches especial importance and about which I should say a few words. The existing provisions of Clause 48 provide that a distributor may require a person requiring a connection to accept such terms limiting the distributor's liability for economic loss arising from negligence, as it is reasonable in all the circumstances for that person to accept.
It has been suggested that the existence of the present provision relating to the restriction of liability for economic loss resulting from negligence may impact on the wider-ranging provision which we are proposing to introduce alongside it. The suggestion is that the interpretation of the new provision may be constrained by the present provision and be considered as not extending to cover terms limiting liability in cases other than those covered by the existing provision.
I wish to be quite clear that that is not our intention. For that reason the amendment adds to the beginning of the existing provision, which now becomes paragraph 21(c), the words,
"without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b)".
In other words, distributors are free to try to persuade customers to accept terms relating to the limitation of liability which extend beyond those covered by the existing provision. If the customer considers that what is being proposed is unreasonable, he may refer the matter to the authority for determination under Section 23.
As I indicated, we have worked with the industry to make sure that the connection provisions of the Bill achieve what the Government wish and at the same time achieve the effects which the industry considers important. This is a difficult and complex part of the legislation, but I am confident that we have now got it right. I express my gratitude to the industry for the contribution which it has made. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, perhaps I may express our support for Amendment No. 25 and thank the Minister for his very helpful clarification of this matter concerning connections. As he stated, it is in response to the amendments which we debated in Committee. I am aware that he has been in consultation with the industry between Committee stage and today. We are very grateful for that. I thank the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Additional terms of connection]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 52, line 32, leave out from ("29;") to first ("any") in line 33 and insert—
("(b) any terms which it is reasonable in all the circumstances for that person to be required to accept; and
(c) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b),").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [General duties of electricity distributors]:
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 53, line 15, at end insert—
("() to facilitate the achievement of the Government's national renewable energy targets, including small-scale renewable generation through net metering"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 27 in the name of my noble friend Lady Sharp and myself.
Amendment No. 26 proposes adding to the general duties of licence holders under Clause 50 on page 53 of the Bill to the effect that they should,
"facilitate the achievement of the Government's national renewable energy targets, including small-scale renewable generation through net metering".
We debated these issues at some length at Committee stage. We sought to persuade the Government to introduce on the face of the Bill their precise renewable targets. However, the Government objected to that. It was felt that that was not the right place, even though the Government reaffirmed their determination that the targets should be achieved.
This amendment refers to that objective in more general terms, but at the same time seeks to emphasise the importance of achieving the Government's renewable targets. They are going to be very difficult targets to achieve. The more emphasis that is given to them the better. This seems to us to be the right place to do that. Therefore, I hope that with this more general wording the Government will be able to accept the amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 27, which deals with the problem of embedded generation. That is also a subject that we discussed at some length. It was agreed on all sides that embedded generation, which is local generation feeding into a local electricity distribution system, should be encouraged.
On 20th June there was an adjournment debate in another place on combined heat and power. In the course of that debate the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the DETR, Mr Chris Mullin, said,
"We want to ensure that CHP and other embedded generation is treated on the same basis as conventional generation. We also want to ensure that it has fair access to the wider networks at fair prices".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/6/00; col. 318.]
The amendment proposed follows precisely Mr Mullin's words and therefore I take it that it will be acceptable to the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I would not like the fact that my name is attached to Amendment

1515
No. 26 but not to Amendment No. 27 to imply in any way that I do not support the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in their amendment. Both amendments are extremely important. It is always the Government's response that they do not want to add extra matter to the face of a Bill. It seems to me that in outlining the duty of an electricity distributor, which is what is done here, it is very important that at least the points outlined in Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 be added. There appears to be no doubt whatsoever that in suggesting these amendments we are suggesting that something should be put on the face of the Bill of which the Government approve and would like to see happen. The best way to do that is to put it on the face of the Bill so that any electricity distributor, looking at the Bill, knows that these measures are among his priorities. I very much support both amendments.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I support both the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and my noble friend Lord Ezra and speak to Amendment No. 27 which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I would like to say a word about the issue of embedded generation. It is clear, and there is a clear admission, that the new electricity generating arrangements disadvantage small generators of electricity yet, as we debated earlier, when we consider the interests of consumers it is not only current consumers but future ones with whom we are concerned. We know that unless we make a serious attempt to meet renewable targets future generations of consumers are going to be at a disadvantage. It is vitally important that we make a real effort to meet the targets.
Embedded generation, small-scale combined heat and power (CHP), small-scale solar panels, effective voltaics and so on, are all forms of energy generation which have great advantages. But they require encouragement. If we do not encourage them now we shall fail to develop the technology on a scale sufficient to enable it to be taken up by consumers. One of the great advantages of embedded generation is that electricity is generated close to its users; it does not incur the costs and losses of transmission. It is extremely important that there should be in the Bill powers and incentives to encourage this small-scale generation capacity so that future generations of consumers may benefit from it.
5 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, in speaking to these two amendments I declare an interest as a member of the management board of Ofgem and a director of the solar energy group. I certainly support the objectives of the two amendments—we wish to promote embedded generation and renewables—but I have difficulties with them. The term "fair" in Amendment No. 27 is very subjective and open to widely differing interpretations. If one substituted more precise terms—such as "reasonable access" instead of "fair access" and "cost reflective prices"
1516
rather than "fair prices"—the amendment would be unnecessary because other aspects of the Bill cover the essential points.
Amendment No. 26 proposes net metering for renewables. Net metering is allowable under the Bill where it is appropriate, but not universally. It would be wrong to introduce genera] net metering for one simple reason: that is, that inflexible and unpredictable plant imposes substantial costs on the system which are ultimately passed on to the customer. The system operator has to take capacity off or put it on to the system in order to balance it and to maintain its integrity. That imposes costs.
It is important that we encourage both environmentally friendly generation, and flexible and predictable generation; better still, that we encourage environmentally friendly and flexible and predictable generation. Net metering eliminates an incentive for flexibility and predictability and will skew the nature of technical development in this area in the wrong direction.
It is worth noting that NETA has a number of special facilities for renewables which encourage small-scale renewable generation. In detail, these arrangements are very technical—I am not sure that they are fully understood—but they are carefully designed to encourage the emergence of aggregators, who will buy the inflexible and unpredictable part of output from small generators, pool those risks and therefore eliminate—or certainly substantially reduce—the discount that small, unpredictable generators will face. Those measures go quite a long way to meeting the concerns and overcoming the disadvantages. They are special arrangements; they go quite a long way towards promoting renewables without going as far as promoting net metering, which has quite substantial disadvantages.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has noticed, has he not, the word "including"? There is no effort to make,
"small-scale renewable generation through net metering"
a major item; it is merely one of the things included in the targets.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, by including a specific mention one is giving it weight over and above other measures which are equally important in the promotion of renewables and embedded generation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is true that these amendments go to the issue of the treatment of small-scale embedded generation within the electricity distribution networks. As the noble Lord, Lord Currie, has drawn out, the Government have recognised in drafting the Bill the importance of small-scale generation—typically, embedded generation—to the development of environmentally-friendly generation technologies, in particular renewables and combined heat and power.

1517
As I said in Committee—and as the noble Lord, Lord Currie, has confirmed—the Government have sought through the various provisions of the Bill to make sure that embedded generators get fair access to distribution systems so that they can compete in the generation market on level terms with conventional large-scale generation. I think it will be acknowledged that that was not the case before. That is why the Bill introduces changes to the regulatory structure of the electricity industry which will remove barriers to embedded generation and enable it to compete fairly on its merits. This is key to encouraging renewable and combined heat and power generation.
I should emphasise that this is a very significant shift in the regulatory framework, working to the benefit of embedded generation. Even though it is difficult to understand and to find in the Bill, it is important not to underestimate it. For example, the separation of electricity supply and distribution, presently combined in the public electricity suppliers, will change the way distribution systems are managed, to the benefit of embedded generators. This is underpinned in the Bill by the explicit duty imposed on distributors to facilitate competition in generation—including embedded generation—as well as in supply. It is also supported by the draft distribution licence conditions which, for example, place system entry and exit points on an equal footing and introduce a power for the regulator to direct distributors to publish long-term development plans, as transmission licence holders are already required to do. In addition, distributors will be obliged to offer terms for connection to embedded generators, something which is not a feature of the present legislation.
The aim is to put in place a framework so that embedded generators will be able to obtain full value for their energy output and any locational benefits they provide and that distribution companies will look at embedded generation on an equitable and transparent basis when considering any network augmentation.
Furthermore, the Government are looking closely at any further practical difficulties faced by embedded generation. We have committed ourselves to addressing any continuing problems relating to the operation of distributed generation and its connection to the distribution system that are identified by a new industry-wide working group, chaired by Ofgem and involving DTI, DETR and representatives of the industry.
I hope that in the light of all this the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Ezra, will accept that the Bill already does everything that they want and that Amendment No. 26 is unnecessary.
Let me be clear—as the noble Lord, Lord Currie, has been—the Bill does not rule out net metering. Indeed, the market is starting, as it should, to address this issue. At least one supply company has already offered a net metering package. The Government welcome this, but we cannot agree that we should introduce a provision which would, in effect—even
1518
with the word "including"—prescribe a system of net metering. This would ignore the difference in value between electricity that a customer supplies to the network and that which he takes from it. Any such general obligation would imply a degree of mandatory cross-subsidisation that would have to be paid for by other consumers.
Nor do we agree that legislation is the place for exhortations about this matter. Legislation is the place for strong, practical measures to make sure that the regulatory framework properly addresses embedded generation. That is what we have provided. Of course electricity suppliers can offer net metering to their customers if they choose, but from the point of view of the law and of this Bill the way forward lies in the measures to benefit embedded generation that I have described.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, in the time-honoured phrase, I should like time to study what the Minister has said before we come to the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, with the permission of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 53, line 15, at end insert—
("(c) to provide embedded generators with fair access at fair prices to the network"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord said about embedded generation. He is quite right. It is obscure; one has to find one's way through a labyrinth in the Bill and supporting documents. I still find it difficult to understand why the words used by one of the noble Lord's ministerial colleagues should not be accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Currie, said that he did not know what "fair" meant. Apparently Mr Chris Mullin knew what it meant because he used the word in another place. Indeed the noble Lord referred to "fair access". I should like to withdraw the amendment with the proviso that I shall study carefully what has been said and may well come back to the matter at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Schedule to be substituted for Schedule 6 to the 1989 Act]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 126, line 45, after ("person") insert ("at any place other than premises at which electricity is being supplied under a contract with an authorised supplier or a deemed contract with an electricity supplier").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 28, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 32. Paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 4 provides for a distributor to recover the value of electricity taken improperly while being conveyed by a distributor. That provision does not, however, take account of the arrangements which have been put in place by electricity companies for recovering sums for

1519
the improper abstraction of electricity. The provision could imply that distribution companies have wider responsibilities than they actually have.
Primarily, responsibility for dealing with unlawful abstraction will be a matter for suppliers and not distributors. Under these arrangements, where electricity is stolen and the customer is taking supply from an identifiable supplier, the supplier makes good any additional costs incurred by other suppliers and any loss suffered by the distributor. The supplier is then able to pursue any remedies for recovering those amounts from the customer.
In a small number of cases where there is no identifiable supplier—for example, abstraction by an improper connection in the road—it would be appropriate for a distributor to have the power of recovery. The amendment would restrict the scope of the provision to those limited circumstances.
I turn to Amendment No. 32. The amendment would provide electricity distributors with rights of access to meters in the case of an emergency. While distributors will retain ownership of the thousands of meters currently in place, they will not have any right of access to those meters. Electricity suppliers will be responsible for providing and reading meters and the powers to enter premises for access to meters will be given to those suppliers, who will be able to exercise those powers themselves or through persons appointed by them.
A distributor could be appointed for this purpose but a supplier will equally be able to select another party to provide metering services. Where the supplier has not appointed the distributor as its agent for metering services, the distributor will not be able to deal with a faulty meter on the customer's premises. In that event, a distributor will be able to disconnect the supply only in order to leave a safe situation and ask the supplier to arrange for its meter operator to deal with the meter. Until that is done the consumer will be without electricity. That cannot be in the consumer's best; interests.
Without the right of access to meters, distributors will be blamed for the poor and confused service consumers will receive, a problem not of the distributors' making. Consumers will rightly not be willing to listen to explanations about the subtle differences between the statutory powers of electricity suppliers and distributors when they are told that their power will have to be left off after they have called out what they still regard in many, many circumstances as the Electricity Board at midnight.
These amendments would enable distributors to enter premises in an emergency to inspect, repair and reinstall meters and, if I may say so, in that case serve the customer. The Government claim that their intention is to put customers first by offering a one-stop shop. Where the distributor is not appointed as the supplier's meter service provider, that simply will not happen. Without these powers distributors, through no fault of their own, will end up providing a poorer service to the customer. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall reply to opposition Amendments Nos. 28 and 32 and I shall then speak to my Amendments Nos. 30, 77, 78 and 103. I should like first to say a few words about an amendment which we propose to make at Third Reading on rights of entry to premises.
We have recently received—within the past few days—representations from electricity distribution companies which are concerned to ensure that they have sufficient rights of entry to premises in cases of emergency. We have listened to their arguments and are persuaded that we should act. Therefore, we will be tabling at Third Reading a small amendment to Schedule 4. As is my usual practice, I shall write to noble Lords to explain the amendment when it has been tabled. The reason I mention this now is both to inform the House and to underline that we are always ready to accept the industry's proposals to amend the drafting of the Bill where its proposals are well founded. That is not the case for Amendments Nos. 28 and 32.
Amendment No. 28 was originally proposed to us by the Electricity Association. It expressed concern that paragraph 4 of new Schedule 6 to the Electricity Act, as inserted by Schedule 4 to the Bill, appeared to place responsibility on distributors to recover the value of electricity illegally abstracted from their distribution networks, whereas in their view all responsibility for energy used by consumers should be the responsibility of suppliers. I am happy to give to the House the response we gave to the association explaining why its concerns were unfounded and why, therefore, this amendment is not appropriate.
First, paragraph 4 of new Schedule 6 gives distributors statutory rights to recover the value of illegally abstracted electricity. It does not place obligations on them to do so. In practice, I understand that there are agreements within the industry itself which may assign such a role to distributors. That would normally only be in cases where there was no supplier to whom the role could appropriately be assigned; for instance, if someone were illegally to connect into a distribution line in the street. The sole purpose of paragraph 4 is to make the distributors' lives easier in these cases by allowing them to use civil legal procedures to recover the value of the electricity so taken.
Secondly, new Schedule 6 has been drafted so that paragraph 4 applies only in cases where paragraph 3 does not. Paragraph 3 provides that a contract shall be deemed to be in place with a supplier where someone takes a supply of electricity without there being an express contract in place. That could cover a number of circumstances, but what is relevant here is that it would cover electricity taken illegally, always provided that a supplier can be identified as being responsible for the supply taken. If not, and only if not, the statutory rights—not obligations—under paragraph 4 would be available to distributors.
I turn to Amendment No. 32. Again, this proposal was first made by the Electricity Association. We considered it carefully but were unable to accept it.

1521
This is not a safety issue, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, says. It is a competition issue. The amendment does not improve safety but it does undermine competition. Certainly, it is usually the distributor who needs statutory rights of entry in an emergency. We have made proper statutory provision for that. But a distributor does not need rights of entry, except in case of emergency, to inspect, repair or replace my deluxe all-singing, all-dancing electric rice-steamer with an egg poacher side attachment. By the same token he does not need them for a meter. It is irrelevant that the distributor might happen to own the meter.
At present it happens that the public electricity suppliers own most of the meters in this country. It may be that these will pass to and remain with their distribution arm after the separation of supply and distribution. That is a matter for the public electricity suppliers and in the longer term also for the authority, which continues to consider the implications for competition of meter ownership. However, the Bill assigns statutory rights and responsibilities for meters and metering to suppliers, not distributors. Suppliers will not have to own meters or provide services for themselves, but may procure them from third parties, who may, of course, include distributors. That is because metering of electricity supplied to premises is a supply not a distribution matter. It also ensures that customers may deal with their supplier for metering as for all other aspects of their electricity supply—the one-stop shop principle. Distributors will continue to be responsible for line and plant. So it is right that they should have various rights of entry related to those, including emergency access. But there is no reason for them to have privileged access to meters for which they are not responsible.
The way we have structured the legislation allows for full competition in metering services. By giving all matters relating to metering to suppliers, we have quite rightly removed the distribution companies, which may well continue to have associated supply companies under the same ownership, from statutory access to meters operated by their supply competitors. Equally, we place distributors on the same statutory footing as independent providers of meter services who have no statutory rights. Both could nevertheless exercise the supplier's rights of entry on his behalf and with his agreement.
I turn to the government amendments, Amendments Nos. 30, 77, 78 and 103. Amendments Nos. 30 and 78 are technical amendments to do with meters, in particular pre-payment meters, and the rights that licensed companies have to enter premises related to meters and pre-payment meters. Amendment No. 77 reflects government policy that pre-payment meters should not be used to recover charges other than those owed for the supply of gas or electricity. For example, hire purchase payments for cookers or fridges should not be charged through a pre-payment meter.
1522
Amendment No. 77 aligns the provisions implementing this policy for gas with the provisions relating to electricity set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 5 to the Bill. First, the amendment ensures that the restriction on non-supply related charges applies to suppliers authorised by exemption as well by licence. This is achieved by the reference to an authorised supplier, which is defined in Section 48, as amended, as meaning a licensed or exempt supplier. Secondly, as metering is part of the process of supply, the costs of providing the pre-payment meter itself should be recoverable.
Amendment No. 30 corrects an omission by giving a power of entry to a licensed supplier to install a pre-payment meter. In order to reduce the number of disconnections, the Bill gives companies a right to fit a pre-payment meter instead of disconnecting, but the associated right of entry was omitted. Amendment No. 78 corrects a similar omission in gas by creating a right of entry corresponding to the right to fit a pre-payment meter in the first place. This is achieved by the reference to paragraph 7(3)(a). Amendment No. 78 also deals with an issue which arises in gas but not electricity. There is a risk of an explosion if gas mixes with air in a service pipe or in an appliance such as a cooker. This can occur when a meter is fitted. So if a company fits a pre-payment meter it needs to purge gas from the system and then test it.
In the absence of the right of entry to premises covering this purging and testing, the licence holder would be forced to leave the pre-payment meter in the "off' position if the consumer was not present, and the consumer would then have specifically to request another visit from the company before he could use his cooker or boiler, doubling the "waiting for the gasman" excuse which employees are known to give from time to time. The amendment would make such a visit unnecessary. We propose extending the right of entry with the words at the end of new paragraph 23(2)(c). As paragraph 3(5) also deals with installing or replacing a meter it is preferable that the power to test and purge the system also applies in relation to paragraph 3(5). I must emphasise that only licensed companies, and not exempt ones, have rights of entry. Licence conditions apply, including the requirement to have a regulator-approved code of practice on access to consumers' premises.
Amendment No. 103 changes the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 in respect of rights for electricity suppliers and distributors to reflect the abolition of the concept of public electricity supplier and to provide for electricity what the Gas Act 1995 provides for gas: namely, that a person who is authorised by an agent of a licensee, to whom the rights of entry in the Electricity Act apply, may apply for a warrant to exercise the right of entry. For the reasons given, I cannot support Amendments Nos. 28 and 32.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I shall read with care in Hansard what the Minister said about Amendment No. 28. We may well return to that matter at Third Reading. With regard to Amendment No. 32,

1523
I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that what we suggest does not impinge on safety but damages competition. I would say that the contrary is true. At one point I thought that we were talking about different amendments. We are talking about the right of access to meters in cases of emergency. We are talking about the responsibility on the part of the industry to serve the customer in cases of emergency. We strongly believe that the amendment deals with that situation. When we raised the issue in Committee the Government were not willing to respond to our amendments. They still feel unwilling to respond to what we believe is a commonsense, practical amendment. I intend to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 32. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 28.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 127, line 34, leave out ("belonging to") and insert ("provided by").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 32, 93, 95, 99, 101, 102, 124, 125 and 128. These amendments are all minor and technical. They make adjustments to the Bill which reflect changes to, or arising from, other parts of the Bill. One could say that about a great many amendments!
Amendments Nos. 29 and 31 provide that provisions which concern distributors' plant and line in new Schedule 6 to the Electricity Act relate only to electrical line and plant actually provided by a distributor, rather than to any line or plant.
Amendment No. 93 makes two changes to the Bill. The first limb of the amendment places the authority under a duty to send a copy of a new licence or an extension to or restriction of an existing licence to any licence holder likely to be affected by its granting. The second limb changes the provisions in Section 15A of the Gas Act which relate to billing disputes so that they apply to all consumers, not just domestic consumers. This is to make them consistent in this respect with the equivalent electricity provisions.
Amendment No. 95 is a purely technical amendment to the drafting and has no substance at all—it says in my brief. It must have some substance! Amendment No. 99, which is a corollary to the second limb of Amendment No. 93 to which I have just referred, and Amendments Nos. 101, 125 and 128 all amend the provisions of Section 44A of the Electricity Act and Section 15A of the Gas Act, which relate to billing disputes, to reflect the abolition of the concepts of public electricity supplier and tariff customer and to make the gas provisions applicable to all customers, not just domestic ones.
Amendment No. 102 amends Section 59 of the Electricity Act, which relates to making of false statements and so on to reflect the changes elsewhere in the Bill to provisions for rights of entry. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 128, line 22, leave out from beginning to ("an") and insert ("Where an electricity supplier is authorised by paragraph 2(1) to install a pre-payment meter on any premises, any officer or other person authorised by the supplier may at all reasonable times enter the premises for the purpose of installing such a meter.
(5) A power of entry for the purpose of removing or installing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 128, line 44, at end insert ("provided by the distributor").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 129, line 16, at end insert ("; or
(c) in the case of emergency, inspecting, repairing or re-installing any electricity meter").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 32) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 122.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Elles, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Flather, B.

Attlee, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Biffen, L.

Glentoran, L.

Blackwell, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blaker, L.

Hanham, B.[Teller]

Boardman, L.

Haslam, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Higgins, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Home, E.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Hooper, B.

Buscombe, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Byford, B.

Jellicoe, E.

Caithness, E.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Coe, L.

Lucas, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denham, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montrose, D.

Dundee, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

1525

Newton of Braintree, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Norfolk, D.

Seccombe, B.

Northbrook, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L

Norton of Louth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Stewartby, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Peel, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Tebbit, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rawlings, B.

Vivian, L.

Rees, L.

Waddington, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Andrews, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Bach, L. [Teller]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Islwyn, L.

Billingham, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Blease, L.

Borrie, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bragg, L.

Judd, L.

Brennan, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Brett, L.

Layard, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Levy, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Chandos, V.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Christopher, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Crawley, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Desai, L.

Nicol, B.

Dixon, L.

Orme, L.

Donoughue, L.

Parekh, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Dubs, L.

Peston, L.

Elder, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Filkin, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Gale, B.

Serota, B.

Gavron, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Simon, V.

Gilbert, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Grenfell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Hardy of Wath, L.

Thornton, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Harrison, L.

Turnberg, L.

Healey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Uddin, B.

Hollick, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warner, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

1526

Weatherill, L.

Wilkins, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Whitaker, B.

Williamson of Horton. L

Whitty, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 5 [Electricity metering]:
5.39 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 131, line 2, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
Page 131, line 3, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 57 [Information with respect to levels of performance]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 57, line 22, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80, 96, 100, 126 and 129. Companies are under a duty to provide the authority with information concerning the standards of performance they have attained in their dealings with customers. At present (and ever since standards of performance were introduced) failure to comply with this duty is a criminal offence, triable in the magistrates' courts, carrying a maximum fine of level 5 on the standard scale (currently £5,000).
These amendments taken together decriminalise the failure to provide information, making it instead a "relevant requirement". Failure to comply with a "relevant requirement" can lead to action by the authority, through enforcement orders up to financial penalties. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who raised a question about how the information on standards of performance could be enforced. I did not go into detail because I did not want to anticipate the fact that we are now making it a civil rather than a criminal offence.
Specifically, Amendments Nos. 35 and 80 decriminalise failures to provide information. Amendments Nos. 96 and 100 make the duty into relevant requirements, and Amendments Nos. 126 and 129 are technical consequential amendments to the schedule of repeals.
The reason for this change is consistency, on two counts. First, all the other duties relating to standards of performance are relevant requirements and, secondly, almost all the other duties requiring the provision of information to the authority are also relevant requirements. The one exception is failure to provide information which the authority has requested when investigating possible breaches of relevant requirements. Clearly, if that failure were subject to the same enforcement provision, we should get into endless loops.
There is no ulterior purpose behind the amendments. It is simply neater if all the standards of performance provisions are treated consistently. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, for the reasons that the noble Lord has given, I am glad that he is doing this. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will agree to support his amendment on this occasion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59 [Financial penalties]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 58, line 10, at end insert—
("() The Authority shall not impose a penalty on a licence holder under subsection (1) where it is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment relates to the possibility of double jeopardy arising from the combination of the authority's competition and regulatory functions. The point was raised at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Kingsland.
The authority has a dual role in its sector, as regulator and as the competition authority. Its competition powers are exercised concurrently with those of the Director General of Fair Trading. If the new United Kingdom competition regime is to develop in a fair, consistent and coherent manner and undertakings are to receive the benefit of the safeguards provided by the Competition Act, competition matters must be dealt with by means of competition powers across industry as a whole, including the regulated sectors.
During the passage of the Competition Bill, provisions were added by the Government which amended the Electricity Act 1989 and the other sectoral statutes to ensure that double jeopardy did not arise where the exercise of competition powers was more appropriate. This amendment makes similar provision to Section 25 of the Electricity Act 1989, as amended by the Competition Act 1998. It would prevent the authority from imposing a penalty where the contravention is one which the authority is satisfied should be dealt with under the Competition Act. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment is based on the fact that the provisions on licence enforcement orders in the Gas and Electricity Acts contain a restriction that the regulator shall not make an order if it is satisfied that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act. This provides a substantial measure of protection against what has been described as double jeopardy. But there is no equivalent restriction in relation to the penalties provisions in Clauses 59 and 95 of the Bill.
The position in relation to financial penalties is not exactly the same as that on enforcement orders. The regulator has a duty to make licence enforcement
1528
orders. The limitation that is now in Section 25 of the Electricity Act was, therefore, essential if overlapping enforcement was to be avoided. However, the power to impose penalties is only a discretion and the regulator therefore has the ability to avoid any overlap.
Nevertheless, the Government naturally wish to achieve as much consistency as is practical between provisions which the Bill inserts into the Gas and Electricity Acts and provisions that are already there; and they wish to achieve as much clarity as it practical on the interaction between licence enforcement provisions and Competition Act enforcement provisions.
The noble Baroness has raised an issue that merits attention and I am grateful to her. I have considered the drafting of Amendment No. 36 and I am pleased to accept it. We shall bring forward an equivalent amendment for gas at Third Reading.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his support for the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 58, line 10, at end insert—
("() the Authority shall not impose a penalty under subsection (1) where the licence holder shows that—

(a) he used his best endeavours to avoid the contravention or failure in question; or

(b) the contravention or failure was due to circumstances beyond his control.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, penalties may be imposed on licence holders on the basis of strict liability. Therefore, a company may be liable to a penalty even where it has taken all possible steps to avoid any breach of its licence. That means that a company may be penalised for matters entirely beyond its control: for example, power outages caused by storm damage. I always think of the example of the storms of 1987, which I thought were an "act of God". Indeed, when I was a law student we often referred to "acts of God", which do not seem to be discussed any more, not least by this Government.
A company may also be penalised where the allowed capital and operating expenditure inherent in the price control regime results in the ability of the company to implement the optimum replacement and maintenance regimes being curtailed, potentially leading to an increased likelihood of power failures and longer restoration times.
The Government's justification for this draconian approach seems to be that consumers are not concerned how a problem occurs but merely want someone punished for it. We feel that that approach is unfair and unjustified. When one looks, for example, at the rate of power system failures elsewhere in the developed world, it is evident that the utilities in this country have provided services to an extremely high standard when compared to those elsewhere. One has only to go on holiday to places such as France and

1529
Spain to be made aware of what amazing services we receive in this country and have received for some considerable time.
The amendment would provide a "best endeavours" defence against such penalties, ensuring that companies are not penalised for matters beyond their control as a consequence of the constraints placed on them. If the standards deteriorate, who is to blame? Is it the companies; or is it the body which now effectively controls the amount that can be spent on replacement and maintenance? If a company can demonstrate that it is spending in accordance with the allowances, is it to be penalised by the very body that determined those allowances? I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment seeks to preclude the imposition of financial penalties in cases where the licence holder concerned uses his "best endeavours" to avoid a contravention or failure, or where the contravention or failure was due to circumstances beyond the control of the licence holder. It is similar to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, at Committee stage, but that sought to limit penalties to cases of recklessness and negligence.
We have resisted amendments of this kind throughout the passage of the Bill and we are going to do so again on behalf of consumers. There are valid precedents for the approach that the Government have adopted. The National Lottery Act 1998 and the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 provide for the relevant regulatory authority to impose financial penalties for contravention of licence conditions. They do not provide get-out clauses for companies which breach their licences without negligence or intent; they do not even provide an automatic get-out where circumstances are beyond their control or their best endeavours. There is a good reason for this. We see no reason why the Government should provide a weaker power in relation to vital public services such as gas and electricity. We hold to the view that the onus should be on the licence holder to maintain compliance, particularly when the consumers concerned cannot move to another service provider, as in the case of electricity transmission and distribution companies and gas transporters.
Let us look more closely at the matter. There may be circumstances, for example in relation to repeated failures to maintain security of supply, where the individual contravention cannot be traced directly to any fault of the licence holder on that occasion but the underlying picture is one of inadequate investment in the long term. Contraventions involving interruption of supply can cause considerable harm to the interests of consumers, both domestic and business. It is entirely right that the onus should be on the licence holder to comply and that the authority should have the opportunity to impose a reasonable financial penalty where the obligation is not fulfilled.
1530
Another point to stress is that, as I explained in response to similar amendments in Committee, these amendments entirely ignore the nature of the powers that we are providing. The authority will have a power, not a duty, to impose financial penalties; it will not be compelled to do so. Any penalty that it imposes must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. It is very unlikely that any penalty which did not take account of efforts by a licence holder to correct a contravention could be considered reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Any such penalty would certainly be likely to be challenged in the courts. However, consumers deserve proper protection and the amendment does not help in that respect. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for his response I am sorry that he has resisted the amendment. As the Minister observed, we are talking about vital public services. We on these Benches do not seek to defend those who are responsible for repeated failures in supply, for example because of underlying inadequate investment. We agree with the noble Lord in that respect. However, we are talking about companies which use their best endeavours in all circumstances to maintain supply. We shall read with care in Hansard the Minister's response. On that basis, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 59, line 18, at end insert—
("(6A) No penalty imposed by the Authority under this section may exceed 10 per cent. of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with provisions specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).
(6B) An Order under subsection (6A) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 38 I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 81. The amendments deal respectively with electricity and gas. As the Minister indicated a moment ago, as the Bill now stands there is a requirement in Clauses 59 and 95 that any penalty imposed must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. My noble friend Lord Currie of Marylebone and I proposed in Committee that there should be a cap or upper financial limit on the penalty that may be imposed. We put forward that case on the lines of the Competition Act 1998 in which the maximum specified is 10 per cent of the turnover of the company.
In response to our amendment tabled at Committee stage the Minister was inclined to believe that a specific limit was unnecessary. However, he recognised that some points had been made in favour of a limit and that the issue merited serious consideration. I understand that the Minister is now willing to agree to such an amendment. He has provided official drafting assistance to arrive at the simplified and—I am sure noble Lords will agree—clear amendments that are

1531
now before the House. We are extremely grateful to the Minister for his reconsideration of the matter and the trouble that he has taken. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, makes a good case for the first part of Amendment No. 38. However, a considerable burden will he placed on both Houses of Parliament if they are asked to approve—which means a positive resolution—perhaps a good number of relatively minor matters. I hope that the Government do not agree to subsection (6B) of the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, when one finds a provision in the Competition Act reflected in the Utilities Bill one is dangerously close to joined-up government. That is desirable inasmuch as the penalty, which hitherto has been unlimited in the framework of the Bill, is now subject to a restriction. If the hint is correct and the Minister is prepared to accept the amendment it is a considerable improvement. However, we shall consider the matter further because we are not entirely sure who in practice is the licence holder. If BP Amoco is a single licence holder, a penalty of 10 per cent of turnover does not appear to be much of a restriction. However, more realistically, given the way that the market has developed a penalty that is restricted to 10 per cent of turnover will provide some companies with a degree of comfort.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, noble Lords may recall that at Committee stage I tabled an amendment in very similar terms to that tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Currie of Marylebone. I then joined them in urging this matter on the Government. These Benches welcome the fact that the Government have responded positively to these amendments. We join the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in expressing slight surprise at the terms of subsection (6B), in that it imposes a considerable burden on both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we are concerned about the implications of this amendment. I add my voice to the observations of my noble friend Lord Renton and my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. We do not regard a maximum penalty of 10 per cent of the turnover of the licence holder as a concession. We suggest that the penalty should be limited to turnover in the United Kingdom. Our concern is that this may set an inflated tariff which in the eyes of the regulator becomes the norm. In particular, in cases where there is only a small breach a penalty of 10 per cent of turnover may amount to an awful lot of money in the circumstances. We believe that it may give the regulator an inflated perception of what is a reasonable tariff. With a cap of this nature there is a possibility that the ceiling may become the norm and set precedents for the future. The Minister will be aware that we on these Benches are keener on
1532
a proper defence as opposed to a cap, although the latter is better than nothing. We are also concerned that in the long run it may prove to be grossly unfair.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, can solve a problem that has worried me all my life. I have never known what a gift horse looks like. If they are good at looking gift horses in the mouth, perhaps when they come back next time they will tell me what they look like. I believe that in accepting these amendments we are doing rather well. The amendments again draw to the attention of the House the issue of a specific upper limit on financial penalties imposed by the authority for contraventions of licence conditions, standards of performance and other specified statutory obligations. The amendments seek to impose an upper limit on any financial penalty of 10 per cent of the turnover of the licence holder concerned, with detailed provisions set out in an order made by the Secretary of State. This introduces a limit on financial penalties analogous to that under the Competition Act 1998, which, as I understand it, was not opposed by the Opposition at that time.
It is right that this is not a concession. We do not think that the Bill as drafted was wrong. As we have repeatedly said, penalties are already limited under the Bill. New Section 27A of the Electricity Act 1989 and new Section 30A of the Gas Act 1986 give the authority a power only to impose such a penalty as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. The Bill also provides licence holders with a right to challenge both the imposition and the amount of the penalty in the courts if they consider them unreasonable; and gives the court powers to quash the penalty or to impose a lower penalty if it agrees with the licence holder. I think that those are the protections that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, sought. This imposes a genuine constraint on the level of any penalty.
However, the Government have taken careful note of the views of the House on this point. We have also listened carefully to the points put to us by interested parties outside this House. I note, for example, that the Gas Consumers Council, in contact with officials at the Department of Trade and Industry, recently declared itself in favour of a 10 per cent of turnover ceiling. The noble Lords, Lord Borrie and Lord Currie, who may be presumed to have the ear of the regulator, have tabled these amendments on two occasions.
I recognise that an upper limit would give extra comfort to companies which are concerned about these provisions, although I would stress once again that companies which adhere to their licences and fulfil their statutory obligations have nothing to fear from the financial penalties provisions.
We would not be accepting this amendment if we thought that there was any risk that it would unduly inhibit the operation of these powers. It is of vital importance that any limit which is imposed does not

1533
undermine the purpose for which these powers are being introduced: to protect the interests of consumers.
I turn for a moment to the precise terms of the amendment. It would give the Secretary of State power to make detailed provisions, for example, in relation to the definition of turnover by order made by affirmative resolution. This appears to strike the right balance in terms of giving the Secretary of State flexibility to vary the precise terms of the order, while providing the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment also mirrors the equivalent Competition Act provisions in this respect.
As I said earlier, it is clear that the industry would draw some comfort from the amendment; and that it would not damage the Government's objectives. We are, therefore, ready to accept both the amendment under discussion and the identical amendment for gas under Clause 95.
6 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the Minister answer my point? The proposed subsection (6B) imposes an unnecessary burden upon Parliament. I do not know of a precedent for positive resolutions having to be made in circumstances like this.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that I had already given the exact analogy and precedent. The Competition Act 1998 contains an exactly comparable cap on financial penalties and provides for affirmative resolution procedures. I understand that the provision has gone to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. The pressure on us is always to increase the scope of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that this will not be seen as a defect of the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 60, line 36, leave out ("make an application") and insert ("appeal").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to the consequential amendments.
Clause 59 provides licence holders with the power to seek review by the High Court or Court of Session of a financial penalty imposed by the authority. In Committee the Minister indicated that the scope of the review would allow the court to look at the circumstances and facts of the case. The Minister commented:
"The Government believe that the provisions on financial penalties go further than judicial review and allow for appeal on similar grounds to those provided by the Telecommunications (Appeals) Regulations 1999".—[Official Report, 21/6/00; col. 302."
He continued later:
"There is no less protection in the Bill than there is in the telecommunications appeal regulations".— [Official Report, 21/6/ 00; col. 304.".
However, from the drafting of the Bill it is far from clear that the court has the power to examine all the facts and the circumstances of a case. There is nothing in the drafting of these provisions which indicates that the court's power to consider the reasonableness of a penalty extends beyond the normal public law standard of considering Wednesbury reasonableness. If that is the limit of the court's power, it will be able to vary a penalty only where the penalty imposed is so unreasonable that no authority properly directing itself would impose it.
The amendments would convert the right of review into a right of appeal similar to that provided by the Telecommunications (Appeal) Regulations 1999. They would allow the court to consider appeals on the same grounds as appeals under those regulations and thus meet what appears to be the Government's intention of ensuring, as the Minister puts it, that,
"there is no less protection in the Bill than there is in the telecommunications appeal regulations".
I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it is a pity that the noble Baroness has repeated an argument put forward on a previous occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland: that the Bill does not go beyond the judicial review type of decision on the basis of Wednesbury unreasonableness.
I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to two provisions in the Bill. First, as has been said several times, and the noble Baroness agrees, the penalty which may be imposed must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. I stress the words "reasonable in all the circumstances of the case". I believe that it is impossible to determine whether a penalty is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case unless the facts are considered.
Secondly, under subsection (4) of new Section 27E, one of the grounds for going to court is,
"that it was unreasonable of the Authority to require the penalty imposed, or any portion of it".
It seems clear enough that if a penalty is not reasonable in the circumstances of the case, it can be challenged. Under new Section 27E, it will be unreasonable for the authority to require the penalty to be imposed.
That is fundamental to the point the Minister made clear in his intervention following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, on the last occasion. An aggrieved person who thinks it unjust that the penalty has been imposed can appeal to the court—that is not the word used by the noble Baroness but it has precisely the same effect—and apply on a number of grounds, including that the authority has acted beyond its powers and that the penalty is not reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Under that provision, the court must be prepared to consider all the relevant circumstances and facts.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these amendments relate to the statutory right of review which is available under the Utilities Bill in relation to the imposition of financial penalties, and they seek to

1535
replace that right of review with a right of appeal to the High Court analogous to that provided under the Telecommunications (Appeals) Regulations 1999.
I am afraid that I shall take a long time in responding to the amendment. I had hoped that when I met the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, after the Committee stage I had persuaded them that if I read out the following long statement it would be satisfactory for the purpose. I go no further than expressing a hope.
The Government are satisfied that the specific rights of review they have provided in relation to financial penalties under the Utilities Bill are appropriate. It has been suggested that they somehow give less protection to licence holders than is afforded in relation to regulatory decisions by judicial review or, in the telecommunications sector, by the Telecommunications (Appeals) Regulations (S.I. 99/3180). That is not the Government's view.
The Telecommunications (Appeals) Regulations, inserting Section 46B into the Telecommunications Act 1984, were made in response to the requirements of two EC telecommunications directives (the Licensing and ONP Directives) which required member states to provide an appeals mechanism against certain regulatory decisions. Section 46B of the Telecommunications Act 1984 provides that:
"a person aggrieved by a decision to which this section applies may appeal against the decision on one or more of the following grounds:

(i) that a material error as to the facts has been made;

(ii) that there was a material procedural error;

(iii) that an error of law has been made; or,

(iv) that there was some other material illegality, including unreasonableness or lack of proportionality".

In the Utilities Bill, the Government have provided for electricity and gas companies to challenge the imposition of financial penalties on the following basis: first, that the imposition of the penalty was not within the power of the authority under Section 27A of the Electricity Act 1989 or Section 30A of the Gas Act 1986; secondly, that any of the (procedural) requirements of subsections (2) to (4) or (6) of Section 27A of the Electricity Act or Section 30A of the Gas Act (concerned with the giving of notice) have not been complied with in relation to the imposition of the penalty and the interests of the operator have been substantially prejudiced by the non-compliance; or, thirdly, that it was unreasonable of the authority to require the penalty imposed, or any portion of it, to be paid by the date or dates by which it was required to be paid.
It has been said that a licence holder's rights of appeal against the imposition or amount of a penalty are severely limited—less than the rights available on judicial review—and that the provisions would not allow the court to look at the underlying facts of a case to determine whether the amount of a penalty was unreasonable in all the circumstances. The Government do not agree with this analysis.
Section 27E of the Electricity Act and Section 30E of the Gas Act provide that a licence holder aggrieved by the imposition, the amount or the payment
1536
schedule set for any penalty may make an application to the court. As I have said, one of the grounds on which such an application may be made is that it was not within the power of the authority to impose the penalty in question.
The formulation that a decision of a regulator or other body is "not within its powers" is common to a number of statutory rights of review in legislation; for example, in planning law. In the planning context, the courts have held that the formulation is wider than a classic ultra vines ground and encompasses challenge on grounds very similar to the grounds of judicial review, including that where the jurisdiction to make an order depends on particular facts there is no evidence to support those facts and that a regulator has otherwise gone wrong in law.
But the Bill goes beyond that. Under Section 27A of the Electricity Act and Section 30A of the Gas Act, the authority only has power to impose a penalty,
"of such amount as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case".
If the amount of a penalty is not reasonable in all the circumstances of a case, it follows that the imposition of the penalty would not be within the power of the authority under that section and an application could therefore be made to the court under new Section 27E(4)(a) of the Electricity Act and new Section 30E(4)(a) of the Gas Act.
Accordingly, if a company challenges the amount of a penalty on the grounds that the imposition of it was not within the authority's power under Section 27A of the Electricity Act or Section 30A of the Gas Act, the questions the court will have to consider will include whether the penalty was indeed reasonable in all the circumstances. If it does not think this is the case, it may quash or lower the penalty as it thinks appropriate.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, acknowledged that "reasonable in all the circumstances" is the test in the Bill. But, he said,
"the test in law, the test for an authority acting outside or beyond its authority, requires an action to be so unreasonable that no reasonable person would ever entertain it".—[official Report, 21/6/00; col. 335.]
The latter test, however, applies on judicial review, whereas we have provided an express and specific right of review on the face of the Bill. The use of the word "reasonable" in this context has the same meaning as when used expressly in any legislation; that is, its ordinary English meaning of "appropriate or fit in all the circumstances". The two tests are distinct.
It has also been suggested that since the authority is required only to be "satisfied" that a contravention has occurred, the imposition of a penalty could be unreasonable under an objective assessment but provided the authority's view that a contravention had occurred was not manifestly unreasonable, there could be no challenge on this ground. Again, the Government disagree.
It is necessary to look at the relevant subsections—that is, proposed Section 27A of the Electricity Act and proposed Section 30A of the Gas Act—as a whole. As

1537
we have said, the court can and should look at the facts to determine whether the authority acted within its power by imposing a penalty that was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Those circumstances must on any reading include the extent of the contravention or failure in question. It is improbable that the authority would be satisfied that there was a contravention or failure where there was none. However, in that unlikely event, the question whether there had been a contravention or failure would be part of the question whether the authority had acted within its power to impose a penalty.
Looking again at the grounds of challenge provided under the Telecommunications (Appeals) Regulations against those provided for in relation to financial penalties under the Utilities Bill, the Government believe that the Bill's provisions match up to the protection afforded by the regulations. For example, the court will have the ability to look at the imposition and amount of a penalty and in so doing will have to look at the circumstance—in other words, the facts—underlying the case. Accordingly, the court will be able to quash or reduce a penalty if there has been a "material error as to the facts".
Procedural error is, as I have already set out, a separate ground for challenge under Section 27E(4) of the Electricity Act and Section 30E(4) of the Gas Act. Error of law, or some other material illegality, including unreasonableness or lack of proportionality, would fall under the ground that the imposition of the penalty was not within the power of the authority—again a specific ground under Section 27E(4) of the Electricity Act and Section 30E(4) of the Gas Act.
In light of this analysis, the Government consider that the right of statutory review provided in relation to the imposition of financial penalties under the Utilities Bill is appropriate and provides an equivalent degree of protection to licence holders as that provided by the Telecommunications (Appeals) Regulations 1999 as well as going beyond that provided by judicial review. On that basis, we believe that the amendments are unnecessary.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full response to the amendment. As he will appreciate, at this stage I do not want to make a full reply. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, had to say, but in response to the statement I would rather confer with my noble friend Lord Kingsland and then consider whether to return to the matter at Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 51 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 62, line 5, at end insert—
("Review of conditions giving rise to penalties.
27G.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to keep under review any licence condition the contravention of which may give rise to a liability to a financial penalty under section 27A.
(2) Where any such licence condition—

(a) is expressed in insufficiently specific terms, or

(b) may otherwise be interpreted ambiguously or without legal certainty,

the Authority shall take appropriate steps to amend or revoke that condition in accordance with the procedures laid down in sections 23 to 26A."").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, penalties for breach of licence conditions will be imposed on licence holders on a strict liability basis, yet licence conditions may not be expressed in terms which are precise or specific enough for the licence holders to be aware of every instance in which the authority may determine that a breach has occurred.
The drafting of such conditions will inevitably give rise to legitimate differences in interpretation between the authority and the licence holder. For example, some licence conditions require the licensee to use "best endeavours", while others require the licensee to "make sufficient arrangements" or to "take reasonable steps".
An ambiguous statutory provision would be interpreted by an independent court or tribunal and according to the cannons of statutory interpretation construed in favour of the defendant. However, in this case interpretation and adjudication will be by the authority—the body responsible for the drafting. If the penalty regime is introduced as proposed, the authority will be in a position to determine that a failure has occurred, notwithstanding the legitimate difference in interpretation, and impose a penalty. The amendment would require the authority to keep licence conditions under review and take appropriate steps to amend or revoke those which may lead to doubtful penalisation. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am entirely sympathetic to the intention of reducing the risk of unclear licence conditions which may lead to inadvertent contraventions and the imposition of financial penalties. However, we do not believe that the Bill runs that risk.
Our position is that, if a licence condition is worth having, it should be properly enforced. If the condition is unclear, that is something that should be taken up between the authority and the licence holder. It is not a matter which relates only to the issue of financial penalties but is fundamental to regulatory certainty. For example, if a company is in breach of its licence, the authority already has a duty to make an enforcement order stating what the licence holder must do, or must cease to do, in order to return to compliance. If the condition were thought to be unclear and companies claimed that it was lack of clarity that led to the breach, one would expect them to take up the matter with the authority, irrespective of the potential for financial penalties.
Let us not forget that if a company continued to contravene its licence conditions after it had been ordered to comply by the authority, it could face legal action for any loss or damage suffered by third parties—that is, basically the consumer—as a result of its failure to comply. Therefore, a considerable incentive already exists for the licence holder to clarify the precise effect of the licence conditions to which it is subject.
Of course, any penalty which is imposed in relation to contravention of licence conditions and other obligations must be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. I believe that that is the mantra for this Bill. The circumstances of the case clearly would include the question as to whether it was clear that a company was in compliance. It would not be reasonable for the authority to impose a penalty on the licence holder for non-compliance if the provision in question was unclear. Such a decision would certainly be very likely to be challenged in the courts.
The financial penalties provisions in the Bill can be contrasted with the powers inserted in the Gas Act by the previous government. Under Section 28(7)(a) of the Gas Act the regulator could impose an unlimited, but appropriate, financial penalty on a company for a likely future breach of its licence conditions. Evidently there were no concerns about the clarity of licence conditions when those powers were introduced or the previous government would not have introduced them. It seems odd to assume that licences have become distinctly less clear as the regulatory system has evolved. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister feels that the amendment is unnecessary. We have talked about this matter at great length with members and representatives of the utilities industries. The whole aspect of reviewing conditions which give rise to penalties is of deep concern to them. We are sorry that the Minister feels that it is unnecessary to respond. He referred earlier to "looking a gift horse in the mouth". Our interest is in good law. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 52) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 133.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Astor of Hever, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Attlee, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Biffen, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blatch, B.

Colwyn, L.

Boardman, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Burnham. L. [Teller]

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Buscombe, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Byford, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

1540

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Freyberg, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Glentoran, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Goschen, V.

Peel, E.

Hanham, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Haslam, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Henley, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Higgins, L.

Rawlings, B.

Home, E.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Kimball, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lucas, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Marlesford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Vivian, L.

Montrose, D.

Waddington, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Weatherill, L.

Northbrook, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Amos, B.

Hamwee, B.

Andrews, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Bach, L.

Harrison, L.

Barker, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Berkeley, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Billingham, B.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blease, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Borrie, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bragg, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

Brett, L.

Chancellor)

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Islwyn, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Burlison, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

Carter, L. [Teller]

Privy Seal)

Chandos, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Christopher, L.

Judd, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Layard, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Crawley, B.

Levy, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dixon, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNally, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Maddock, B.

Dubs, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Elder, L,

Massey of Darwen, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Evans of Watford, L.

Molloy, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Filkin, L.

Nicol, B.

Gale, B.

Orme, L.

Geraint, L.

Parekh, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gilbert, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Goodhart, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

1541

Razzall, L.

Thornton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Tordoff, L.

Rennard, L.

Turnberg, L.

Roper, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Uddin, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B

Shepherd, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Simon, V.

Whitaker, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Whitty, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wilkins, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Strange, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.34 p.m.
Clause 62 [Obligation in connection with electricity from renewable sources]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 65, line 42, at end insert—
("() Before making an order, the Secretary of State must consult those persons who appear to him to represent the generators of electricity from renewable resources—

(a) as to the current availability and projected generating capacity of the industry;

(b) as to the terms proposed in the order;

(c) as to any specific provisions that will be required in the order as to length and terms of any contracts to be made by electricity suppliers or otherwise;

(d) as to the sum and different such sums which are to correspond with the supply of a given amount of electricity generated in different ways under section 32C(2); and

(e) on such other matters, if any, as he considers appropriate,

to ensure that the provisions of the order will provide a suitable environment for investment in generating capacity for electricity from diverse renewable resources in order to meet the targets for production of electricity from renewable resources set by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 56. The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution reported two weeks ago that unless carbon dioxide emissions are reduced by 60 per cent within the next 50 years, our climate will change markedly. The changes will not be pleasant. They will effectively destroy the British landscape and submerge large tracts of low-lying and coastal land, rendering obsolete all the energy currently being expended on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill.
The report makes 87 recommendations. I am principally concerned today with those that urge the Government to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, such as wind power, solar power, energy crops and biomass. The report says that growing crops for energy purposes should be regarded as a primary use of our agricultural land.
According to Robert Shrimsley of the Financial Times, the Government expect a surplus of £50 million on the climate change levy. That allegedly fiscally neutral tax will apparently swell the coffers of the
1542
Government, who are minded generously to dedicate half of the income to research into offshore wind power, which should get at least £10 million, and other renewable sources. I hope that that will not be heralded as new money. The Government are ending the non-fossil fuel obligations. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that the integrity of existing generators' NFFO contracts will be protected.
We must ensure that the Bill allows, even encourages, parties to enter into long-term contracts for renewable resources. I spoke on Second Reading against any let-out clause to permit suppliers to avoid meeting their 10 per cent obligation by purchasing notional renewable energy certificates from the Government, the proceeds of which purchase will be shared among other suppliers. Such a scheme surely means that if the use of non-fossil fuels is too expensive or difficult, everyone in the producer pool can ignore their obligation, pay their fine and sit back and wait for their share of everyone else's fine.
Similarly, the ability of electricity generators to switch off electricity production from renewable sources whenever demand drops must be checked. There must be an obligation to encourage parties to make long-term contracts with a variety of renewable sources and to honour them through thick and thin. When demand falls, it should be fossil fuels—oil, gas and coal sources—that are switched off. Unless and until the Government ensure that these things happen, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to increase the use of non-renewables in electricity generation.
The British Wind Energy Association has said that £10 million will not fund a farm, although it might be enough for a couple of offshore turbines. Private finance will not be forthcoming unless there is a rock solid legal framework and a government-supported commitment to the regular use of renewable sources over the long term.
The same argument applies to biomass. To raise its contribution to the same level as hydro power would require the planting of 100,000 to 150,000 hectares—250,000 acres in old money—of willow short rotation crop or miscanthus. That would be a huge increase on current plantings, using approximately half the land currently set aside. The money available under the rural development plan for England should allow us to achieve 20 per cent of the above figure. However, that fund lasts only until 2005–06, after which farmers have to go on nurturing their crops in the expectation of continuous demand.
The Department of Trade and Industry publication Financing Renewable Energy Projects makes crystal clear the assurances that banks and others will seek before they will lend the money. I shall highlight but three. First, on the power purchase agreement, the document says:
"This contract is the cornerstone of most renewable projects. The power purchaser must be creditworthy. Lenders will want the contract term to extend beyond the term of the loan. The contract will be assessed by the lenders for its economics and conditions that might cause early terminations—lenders will want the ability to cure any defaults rather than face termination".
Secondly, the document goes on to say:
"In a power purchase agreement the terms and price should be clearly defined and there should be no 'market out' clauses allowing for contract cancellation due to market conditions".
Thirdly, on page 14, it states:
"Repayment provisions are usually a function of the project economics and lenders will require full repayment of their loans well within the period of the major contracts, in particular the power purchase agreement (and/or the fuel waste supply contract for an energy-from-waste project). Lenders will normally be prepared to see their repayments tailored specifically to the cash flow profile of a project. A typical repayment would be approximately ten years from the start of the project, with a maximum of 13–15 years, depending on the term of major contracts".
I should like to ask the Minister whether the people who wrote that had anything to do with the drafting of the Bill.
The use of biomass will not only result in cleaner electricity and somewhere for the banks to put their millions. It will enable farmers to grow a crop instead of having set aside. It will mean also that the growing trees will consume the same amount of carbon dioxide as is produced when the wood is burnt during electricity generation.
In other words, biomass, seen from an environmental viewpoint, should have a neutral pollution effect. From an agricultural point of view, it will enable farmers to switch from the much maligned common agricultural policy while continuing to care for and protect our green and pleasant land. Moreover, the crop has significant wildlife and biodiversity benefits.
I do not feel that with so much at stake we should simply rely on the promises of the Secretary of State to take the necessary steps to ensure the future. Our amendments spell out what must be included in a clear obligation to consult all parties involved and only to make a renewable order that takes into account the requirement for a suitable environment for the investment.
Amendment No. 56 merely corrects the grammar. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on her presentation of the case. I do not wish to be excessively partisan but I am reminded of an occasion some years ago when I was in another place, taking part in a debate on the threat of global warming. There were, I think, 90 Conservative Members sitting opposite, all of whom were passionately opposed to public expenditure. I pointed out that about 80 of them represented constituencies which lay less than 100 feet above sea level. I said that I looked forward to the time when each of them, being opposed to public spending, would have a squeegee mop and seek to do a Canute to stem the approaching waters.
Things are changing and the stakes are now seen publicly to be very much higher. I certainly endorse the basis of the noble Baroness's excellent presentation. But I have an anxiety. As I see it, the contents of the
1544
renewables basket, in terms of that which is likely to be imminent, is far less varied than it should be. The noble Baroness referred to wind power, biomass and energy crops. I am fearful about the question of on-shore wind power. The noble Baroness referred specifically to off-shore wind power, which is a different matter.
I should hate to think that because we can move rapidly in relation to wind power there will be too many wind power eggs in the basket. I should hate to think that in 50 or more years time the visible legacy of this Government, who are doing such good work, will be seen as a proliferation of windmills disfiguring the glorious landscape of our country.
I spoke briefly on the matter in Committee. My noble friend may wish to reply to the fact that there sometimes seems to be an inflated view of the contribution windmills can make. I referred—and I mention it again—to one proposed wind farm which is under consideration in part of my own county. That would produce in a year only the amount of electricity which Drax power station, the cleanest of our power stations, produces in six days.
We must give greater priority to biomass. We could rapidly start to produce energy crops of enormous importance and make a marked contribution to achieving the Government's splendid target. But my anxiety is that we do not have the outlets or the generative capacity to use those energy crops which the noble Baroness mentioned. If the Government are to see their very commendable targets achieved, they must give a push to ensure that British agriculture can use land wisely.
Let us think about the enormous areas of land which have been set aside in recent years. We could actually put that land to a positive and valuable use. Therefore, we should be looking with more urgency at that aspect.
I ask my noble friend for an assurance. I hope that we shall not get into a situation where, in order to achieve the Government's splendid targets and not having developed alternative forms of renewable energy, local planning authorities would have their arms and elbows twisted to give favourable consideration to wind power developments which their communities do not like and for which posterity would not thank us if our landscape was disfigured as it would be.
I do not suggest that we should have no windmills on-shore. But the place for them is at sea. To allow a temporary need, which is unnecessary if we develop biomass properly, to disfigure part of our glorious heritage would be a mistake. That is best avoided by urgent action in this year of grace instead of allowing a delay, creating a problem which we may regret before very long.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord has performed a valuable service by stressing the environmental factors which arise with regard to the production of electricity and other forms of fuel. We must prepare for events which cannot always be foreseen. Climatic change will be a vital factor. The

1545
change in scientific progress, which often comes at short notice and as a great surprise, is another factor which may have a bearing on the matter.
My noble friend who moved the amendment was right to stress what she did. It is an important amendment. It may be that there are some industrial interests which do not want the flexibility and adaptability which the amendment would provide. But it is extremely important that this clause, which is very necessary, should be strengthened and the position it has in mind made more flexible by the terms of the amendment.
As I said, it may be that some vested interests do not welcome it. On the other hand, one should bear in mind that the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers Union and some very important scientific industrial lobbies—British Biogen and Abre, the largest biomass generator in the United Kingdom—want this matter dealt with. I think that something should be done, in all parts of the House, to support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Before the Secretary of State makes an order relating to the renewables obligation, it is important that, as well as consulting the authority and the council—which he is bound to do—he should also consult closely with the persons who are likely to generate the electricity from renewable sources. It seems to be perfectly logical and sensible that he should do so. Otherwise, there would be a lack of understanding of the scope of the issues involved. The amendment clearly sets out what the Secretary of State should seek to establish before he proceeds to make an order. Therefore, I warmly support the proposal.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is difficult to resist an amendment which is moved on the basis of preserving England's green and pleasant land. I find it difficult, on emotional grounds, to resist what is being said. However, there are different ways of preserving England's green and pleasant land. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, that perhaps in some parts of the country, wind farms might not be the best way to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is right to be concerned that the new obligations in Clause 62, in connection with electricity from renewable sources, should provide the right investment environment. That is the concern of the Government, too. I assure the noble Baroness that consultation with renewable generators on all the issues listed in the amendment, with one exception, is already taking place, and will in future take place, under the provisions for consultation already in the Bill.
Before noble Lords look at the bottom of page 65 and see reference to the authority and the council, perhaps they would turn to page 66 and see that the consultation required has included, now includes, and will in future include such other persons, if any, as he
1546
considers appropriate. I assure all Members of the House that the consultation includes those named in the amendment, and will continue to do so.
The exception is the question of long-term supply contracts. As I explained in Committee, the Government simply do not accept that we should retain a feature of the old non-fossil fuel obligation mechanism—Government-mandated long-term renewable supply contracts—which runs contrary to the entire thrust of the Government's market-based policy for the new renewables obligations.
I turn to the broader underlying issue; that is, whether the new obligations as planned by the Government will deliver sufficient investment in renewables to meet the Government's renewables targets. The Government consulted last year on the kinds of support mechanisms which should be used to promote the development of renewable energy.
Among a number of diverse views in the responses to that consultation there was considerable support for an obligation on suppliers. That is why we are putting a long-term obligation on suppliers which will last until 2025. That will determine from the outset the profile of the obligation on suppliers, the eligible renewables, the buy-out mechanism and the mechanism for recycling buy-out receipts.
Renewable energy resources are limited in their availability and the rate at which they can be deployed. I think that that point was recognised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. The Government are therefore confident that such a long-term obligation and the premium price which renewables will attract will enable suppliers and generators to bring forward renewables capacity in the confidence that there will be a market for the product at prices that will attract appropriate levels of investment capital.
In line with the move to a market-based approach, the matter of individual contracts and the choice of technologies to meet the supply obligation is a matter properly left for negotiation between generators and suppliers. The Government recognise, however, that in order to meet the 10 per cent target it may be necessary to bring forward long-term technologies such as offshore wind power and energy crops, which were spoken to so eloquently. We are considering support for those technologies in the context of the spending review 2000.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, sought assurance that the integrity of the existing non-fossil fuel contracts would be secured. I am happy to give her that assurance. We are working with the industry to ensure the integrity of existing contracts. Indeed, that is the purpose of Clause 67, which we shall come to in due course.
As I have said, it is difficult when amendments are moved in such a way that opposition appears to be supporting sin rather than opposing sin. However, it is not as simple as that. Although most of the matters in the amendment are unexceptional, we think it is

1547
important to reassert our opposition to long-term contracts which appear to be implied by the amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his lengthy and detailed response. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, for his comments; my noble friend Lord Renton and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. I shall read carefully what the Minister has said and discuss it with my noble friend Lord Jenkin, who is extremely sorry that he is not able to be in his place.
In addition, perhaps I may make two comments regarding onshore and offshore wind power, which were referred to in the Minister's response and in contributions by other noble Lords. The truth of the matter is that once such wind power stations are set up, they will cost nothing, whereas the planting of non-food crops involves ongoing costs. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider that point before Third Reading. There is a difference between the two. Wind can be captured at no cost, but growing crops have to be cared for and there are continuing costs.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. However, construction costs can be considerable, and there are ongoing costs. There is the problem of noise and the problem of people who live nearby who did not want wind power stations near their homes in the first place. In some cases, there is a great deal of bird mortality as a result of the operation of windmills. From time to time, the sails fall off. Wind speeds can sometimes be so high that they cannot possibly operate and produce electricity as they are designed to do.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He perhaps adds to the point I make. I referred earlier to non-food crops produced by farmers on set-aside land. I also said that that would obviously encourage wildlife and biodiversity. The comments of the noble Lord add to my argument, which I am delighted to hear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness invited me a moment ago to write to her between now and Third Reading. Time is short, but if she has not seen the leaflets on renewables published by the Department of Trade and Industry, I shall certainly send them to her.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister. However, I am sure that I have seen the leaflets. Perhaps I may also mention one matter following the Minister's response.
In response to an earlier amendment and indeed, in the Minister's response to me, it was said that market forces would perhaps have a bearing on this matter. However, earlier, the Minister stated that market forces could not be entirely replied upon. Hence, I press the point that the amendment is extremely important.
1548
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion. I shall discuss the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 65, line 42, at end insert—
("() Operators of generating stations producing electricity from renewable sources shall be permitted to supply electricity produced by the generating stations to more than one party.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 54 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 59.
Amendment No. 54 seeks to allow small generators to obtain the best possible price for their output. A generator using wind power, for example, will not be able to predict exactly how much output he will have available at a given time in the future. He is required to contract to supply three-and-a-half hours ahead. If he contracts, say, for 20 kilowatt hours and can only make 18.3, he falls foul of what is called the "balancing mechanism" and is charged heavily for his failure.
Amendment No. 54 will allow each operator to calculate his minimum output, sell that at price X and then contract with another company to receive anything above X. The company who takes that excess may be a supplier, it may be a consolidator or art electricity broker, and may be in the local area or anywhere in the country. The advantage to the generator is that he avoids the penalty of under-producing and may obtain a premium for the fact that his output comes from renewable sources and can be counted by an end-user towards avoidance of the climate change levy.
This arrangement was endorsed by Ofgem/DTI and in the conclusions of its document of October 1999 on page 84, Section 75, it said,
"The new balancing mechanism unit splitting arrangements will allow … a fixed volume to be sold to a supplier within the same Grid Supply Point Group. Since the output contracted is fixed and secure, the price achievable for this output should be attractive … The remaining unpredictable proportion … could then be managed either directly by the generator or by using the services of a supply aggregator acting at either a local or national level".
I understand that the reason this option is not on the face of the Bill is that major alterations would have to be made to what is called the "master registration agreement". Global warming and the need to use renewable sources is too serious a matter to allow substantial changes to an operating agreement to stand in the way.
Amendment No. 59 will enable renewables generators to ensure that they can obtain arty renewables premium, even if they sell their physical output to a supplier who does not need to meet the renewables obligation. Sales by generators might be made at brown electricity prices and the certificate sold separately to a supplier who needs it to make up any difference between green and brown electricity prices. Some customers want to buy green power. The "greenness" of the electricity from renewable energy

1549
sources has a value that is separate from, or additional to, the value that the customer places on the energy. One could say that renewables generators produce energy and greenness as two separate outputs. Amendment No. 59 enables them to sell those outputs separately. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall have to read carefully in Hansard what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said. Some of her comments do not strike a bell with me at all in relation to these two amendments. If I may, I shall read again what she said and write to her on the issues. I do not believe I am capable of replying to them at the moment. However, I am capable of replying to the amendments and I shall try to do that.
Amendment No. 54 is intended to allow renewables generators to sell their output to more than one supplier. Nothing in the new renewables powers under Clauses 62 to 65 places any obligations or restrictions on generators at all. All obligations are on suppliers. Therefore generators are free to do what they like with the electricity they generate. It is purely a matter of choice and contract as to how many parties they choose to sell their output to.
Amendment No. 59 is intended to allow generators to sell their green certificates separately from their physical output if they wish. Clause 64, to which the amendment relates, is already drafted so that they can. It is fundamental to the certification system that a certificate may be traded separately from the physical electricity to which it relates. There would be no point in having such a provision otherwise. That is why Clause 64 is drafted the way it is. It simply allows the authority to certify that a generating station has generated renewable electricity that has been supplied to customers in Great Britain. A supplier may subsequently present such a certificate to the authority as evidence that he has fulfilled such amount of his obligation under Clause 62 as is certified, irrespective of who has actually been involved in the purchase of the physical output of the generator in question. Indeed, the Government's intention was indicated in Conclusions in Response to the Public Consultation, published in February this year, which stated on page 11 that,
"the trade in green certificates may be entirely separate from trade in the electricity that gave rise to their issue".
Therefore, although I may not be able to satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in terms of the issues raised in her speech, I hope that she will be satisfied that these amendments are unnecessary.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of accepting what the Minister said but acknowledging that we may not be speaking about the same things. It would seem logical at this stage, therefore, for me to withdraw the amendment. We will both then have a chance to look in Hansard at the other's contribution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 65, line 42, at end insert—
("() The making of an order will not be dependent on the coming into effect of separate distribution and supply licences.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope to do better with Amendment No. 55. There appears to be doubt about the date at which this obligation comes into force. It was to have started in 2003. But my latest information is that it will happen next year. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.
Whatever the implementation date is, it is clear that it will be some way ahead. It does not make sense to hold a renewables order until all public electricity supply companies have been split. It should be possible for the Government to ensure that an order applies to the public electricity supply companies in relation to their supply function even before they are formally split. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I want to add just a few brief words to what my noble friend has already said. Amendment No. 55 has the advantage of adding to the main purpose of the Bill, which is to enable adaptability to take place in the changing circumstances of the future. It would be a great pity if something to the effect of this amendment were not included in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of HaringeyMy Lords, I recognise that Amendment No. 55 addresses a real issue. This amendment is aimed at allowing a renewables order to be put in place before the introduction of separate licensing of supply and distribution. It reflects a concern that there may be an interval between the introduction of separate licensing of supply and distribution and a renewables order. As the clause is currently drafted, we cannot make a new obligation until the separation has taken place. To that extent the noble Baroness and I are in agreement. This is because the clauses are drafted so as to place the obligations on the new category of electricity suppliers as they will exist only after the separation. But I want to reassure the noble Baroness that this will not be a problem in practice.
We aim to introduce a new renewables order as soon as we can, consistent with the timetable we are establishing for full and proper consultation on the detail of the order. Equally, we will waste no time in bringing in the separate licensing of supply and distribution. That is why the Government tabled Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 for consideration today which will allow this to happen before the transfer schemes under paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, which will split the public electricity suppliers into separate supply and distribution companies, have been approved by the Secretary of State.
As a result of these amendments, the only remaining important matter to be settled before we can make the separation will be to finalise the new licence conditions for supply and distribution. And we are already well

1551
down the path towards that. Therefore I am confident that the separation of supply and distribution will not be the cause of significant delay to the coming into effect of a new renewables order. But even if it were a matter of a few additional months, the practical effect would not be significant. What is at issue here is the legal starting point of a long-term obligation that the Government have said we intend to impose over a period up to 2025. Once we have finished our consultation, it will be quite clear to everyone what the obligation will be and the period over which it will be in effect. So a few months' difference in the actual date on which the order comes into effect would hardly impact on the development of the arrangements to meet the obligations under it. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will accept that this is a problem which does not in practice need to be addressed by this amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. However, I am not sure how to take his response. He has not disagreed with the amendment; therefore I am rather surprised that the Government have not accepted it, particularly as the Minister mentioned that they would introduce a renewables order. According to my humble thought processes it does not follow that the Government have not accepted the amendment. I am somewhat disappointed at that.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I apologise if I have not made myself clear. We have to separate the distribution and supply licences because one cannot introduce an order which applies to the old organisation of the industry; it must apply to licensees as they will exist after the coming into effect of the Bill.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord is saying. But I believe that he mentioned a time lapse before the separation can take place which could delay the introduction of a renewables obligation. However, I shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 56:
Page 65, line 43, at end insert ("also").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved Amendment No. 53. However, the Minister did not respond to Amendment No. 56 at that point. I am not sure where that leaves me.
Noble Lords: Do not move it!
Baroness Byford: I shall not move Amendment No. 56.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
Clause 63 [Orders under section 32: supplementary]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 66, line 23, after ("for") insert ("electricity generated from different specified descriptions of renewable resource both concurrently and for").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Bill as drafted does not properly differentiate between different types of renewable electricity. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin mentioned at Second Reading, our fear is that this will lead to the development of cheaper renewable energy sources such as onshore wind and energy from waste.
The problem is that considerable investment is needed in order to bring forward new renewables—we mentioned these earlier—including offshore wind and biomass. This amendment highlights the opportunity for a renewables order to be "banded".
I have been advised by the CLA, the NFU and the British Biogen, the trade association for the emerging biomass industry, that banding is essential in order to secure the necessary investment, particularly in biomass. It is proposed that an order should require suppliers to purchase a proportion of the renewables obligation from new sources.
The Minister confirmed in a meeting following Second Reading that the Government favour a market solution to developing renewable energy. In the same breath, the Minister confirms the Government's willingness to provide substantial grant aid for new renewables. There is a logical inconsistency in this approach. Our alternative suggested in the amendment is to have a double market approach: one for old renewables and one for new ones. This will ensure that the industry is enabled to finance its own R&D, producing much needed savings in public expenditure. I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I support the amendment. There is a need for research to develop a variety of renewables. We should consider how we can further assist research into micro and hydro energy, for example, in addition to the other sources we have discussed tonight.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too wish to support the amendment. It is important that a variety of renewables should be encouraged and stimulated. Market forces will not necessarily achieve that in all cases.
7.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, that the amendment is not necessary. If we wanted to set specific obligations for particular technologies, which is the purpose of her amendment, we can already do so using the powers in new Section 32A(1)(b),(c) and (d) in Clause 63. New Section 32A(1)(b) states,
"that only electricity generated using specified descriptions of renewable source is to count".
New Section 32A(1)(c) states,
"that only electricity generated by specified descriptions of generating station is to count".

1553
New Section 32A(1)(d) states,
"that a specified minimum amount of electricity generated … is to be counted".
Therefore, all of the measures that the noble Baroness seeks to provide for are already provided for in the Bill.
The amendment is contrary to the thrust of the Government's renewables policy, which is to leave the market, not the Government, to pick the winners. We recognise that this will lead suppliers to go for the immediately accessible technologies first. That is right and proper. We want to achieve our renewables targets as efficiently as possible to fight global warming.
I can confirm—the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will recall this from the Committee stage—that we are looking at the scope for making limited additional government support available for offshore wind and energy crops. One possibility, though not the only one, is to draw some funding from the £50 million Climate Change Levy Fund. This and other options will be pursued in the Spending Review 2000.
I do not see any conflict between going first for those technologies which will have a quicker impact on the environment and the climate and providing resources for other renewable energy sources which may take longer to develop. I believe that the longer term renewables technologies will benefit from the renewable obligations too. As electricity suppliers move towards the 10 per cent target, they are likely to find that there is insufficient availability of cheaper renewables and they will need to look increasingly to offshore wind and energy crops to meet their obligation. I believe that it is recognised that these energy sources cannot be brought in overnight. It would be prudent therefore for energy suppliers to look ahead now to ensure that these technologies will be brought forward on a timescale and in sufficient quantities to meet their needs.
On the basis that provision is already made in the Bill to meet this amendment's objectives, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for those comments. I am slightly alarmed by his reference to the market picking the winners. I find that disturbing, as what one person might consider to be a winner one year may not prove to be a winner in the long term in terms of providing something that is beneficial to the country as a whole.
I refer to willow crops and energy crops. These crops may take a little longer to become established. The Arbre plant is still in its early stages. Those kind of plants need investment. Along with my noble friend Lord Jenkin, I have tried to ensure that we try to encourage a greater variety of renewable resources. I believe that the Government recognise that farming has gone through difficult times. If we are to allow the market to pick the winners, we may not get any winners at all. If we do, they may be those big, unsightly wind turbines about which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, has reservations.
1554
I have spoken at length on this matter. I am disappointed with the Minister's response but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 67, line 27, at end insert—
("if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the differences are such that no electricity supplier would he unduly disadvantaged in competing with other electricity suppliers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64. Amendment No. 58 fulfils the commitment I made in Committee on 21st June when I said that I would bring forward a government amendment in response to Amendment No. 241 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. This amendment has the effect that the Secretary of State may only make different provision for different suppliers if he is of the opinion that no supplier would be unduly disadvantaged in competing with other suppliers by his making different provision. I believe that the amendment is consistent with the objectives of the original amendment proposed from the Benches opposite and I ask the House to support it.
Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 are two small, linked technical amendments which simplify the drafting of the renewables provisions without altering their substance. They delete a specific power to amend the NFFO reference price because the powers under Clause 67 are sufficient to achieve the same objective. The amendments will also simplify the transitional arrangements made under the clause. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it may be that I am being a little dense. Can the noble Lord explain whether the qualification in Amendment No. 58 applies to both paragraphs (a) and (b) or only to (b)?
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 58 because the Minister has stated that it is in response to our Amendment No. 241 tabled at Committee stage and debated in full at that stage. We welcome the response.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the qualification applies to both paragraphs.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Green certificates]:
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Clause 65 [Alternative way of discharging renewables obligation: payments]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 68, line 14, after ("may") insert ("in the circumstances set out in subsection (1A) below").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61. Clause 65, as drafted, is no doubt intended to protect the consumer from the failure of the market in

1555
renewable energy or, as we hope, both the market in new and old renewable energy. I understand the Minister's concern for the fuel poor and indeed share it. However, the opportunity for suppliers to buy their way out of the obligation must be carefully controlled in order to ensure a stable market. In fact, there is no need for the mechanism until or unless there is market failure. This amendment requires the cost of electricity to have become excessive in the light of the need for renewables before the buy-out mechanism kicks in. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely support the noble Baroness's concern that the new renewables obligation should be met by the generation of renewables and not by the buy-out mechanism as far as possible. But these amendments would have the opposite effect of what is intended. They would allow the use of the buy-out mechanism under Clause 65 for renewables only after the event and only if the price of renewables was judged to be excessive.
The Government's intention is to put in place a long-term renewables obligation lasting until 2025. This will determine from the outset both the level of the obligation and the level of the buy-out price. Under our plans everyone will know exactly what the cost level will be beyond which suppliers will not be obliged to purchase renewables. Only by doing this can we provide the certain and stable regulatory framework against which suppliers will be able to plan to meet their obligations and generators, together with their financiers, respond by constructing the necessary plant.
However, the noble Baroness's amendment would leave the sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of the industry. Supplies and generators would never know when a price cap would be introduced, or at what level, so that they and their bankers would never have a certain basis on which to price their projects. That would be regulatory uncertainty at its worst. It would bear particularly badly on the more expensive, less near-market technologies that have been so rightly raised. That is because they would be operating closer to the cost margin at which this delayed price cap might suddenly be introduced. Nothing could be more calculated to deter long-term agreements for renewables, which was the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, when we discussed Amendment No. 53, than the risk that the underlying pricing assumptions could be suddenly overturned by a future price cap.
Therefore, I urge the noble Baroness to accept that the question of the level of the buy-out price under this clause has to be settled in advance and not left hanging, as this amendment would require. The level of the buyout price will be a key element of the further consultation which we shall carry out before introducing the new renewables obligation.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I shall look very carefully at what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

Utilities Bill

  ELECTRICITY FROM COMBINED HEAT AND POWER AND CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY.
  (" . In making an order and other arrangements under sections 32, 32A, 32B and 32C of the 1989 Act the Secretary of State may also make provision for—

  (a) electricity generated by any form of combined heat and power stations:

  (b) electricity generated by approved systems of clean coal technology.")

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the renewables obligation to include combined heat and power and clean coal technology. Perhaps I may deal first with combined heat and power. The Government's support for that way of making better use of the electricity generating capacity in the country is well known. They have set an objective, as they have for renewables, for the year 2010. In discussions I have had with the noble Lord since Committee stage he has assured me that CHP will be included in the energy efficiency obligations which are dealt with in Clauses 70 and 99. That is one kind of obligation contained within this Bill. I am quite satisfied about that.
  However, the purpose of this amendment is to make sure that CHP would come into the other kind of obligation, the renewables provision, which imposes an obligation on suppliers to take certain types of electricity. As regards renewables, my proposal is that it should be extended to combined heat and power. That is the simple proposition that I make. In view of the Government's known support for CHP, I believe that it should come into both sorts of obligations contained in this Bill as regards the energy efficiency obligation and the proposed extension of the renewables obligation. That is the proposition as regards combined heat and power.
  The proposition as regards clean coal technology we touched on earlier. We ought to be moving in the direction of having plant operating on clean coal technology systems in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is one of a number who have been fighting the battle for years. We need to create a climate in which that type of activity can be stimulated.
  As I mentioned at Committee stage, I tried some years ago to persuade the government to extend the non-fossil fuel obligation to include clean coal technology. That was on the point of being agreed, but then it failed. It was a Private Member's Bill and these days the fate of such a Bill is uncertain. It is another way in which the creation of this type of plant could be brought about. If there were an obligation to take a proportion of electricity produced by clean coal technology, then we would get the plant to produce it. There is not a situation at present in which one would put money into the venture because, on a straight comparison with other forms of energy generation, it would be too expensive. And so it is with regard to renewables. That is the whole reason for the renewables obligation. Therefore, I strongly

  1557
  propose—I hope that it will gain support—that the renewables obligation be extended both to combined heat and power and to clean coal technology. I beg to move.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. The logic of the case for combined heat and power is clear. It is both sensible and economic. There are also double benefits from combustion.
  So far as concerns clean coal technology, we debated this matter earlier and I certainly do not wish to delay the House. I accept that the Government recognise that clean coal technology is desirable and that there could be a substantial international market for its development. The point I wish to make is that, if our mining engineering and related industries are to take advantage of that opportunity, there has to be a home base of a sufficient size to provide the demonstrations required to attract an international audience.
  In her admirable speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was sweepingly condemnatory of fossil fuels. The raw consumption of fossil fuels which emit noxious gases must come to an end. But, whatever we do, the world will continue to burn vast quantities of coal. If we were to shut down all our pits and coal-fired power stations tomorrow, it would make very little difference to the total amount of coal which will be burnt internationally. It is therefore highly desirable for a number of countries to ensure that clean coal technology is supported not only at its research stage but at its development stage, in order to demonstrate to the world that the planet need not continue to be polluted on the scale that it inevitably will be if leads are not taken.
  Britain is in a position to give a lead. I hope that the Government will take a favourable view of the case that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has been advancing for a very long time, with the support of a number of my noble friends, of whom the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, is a notable example. I hope that the Government will recognise that we have an international opportunity. We may also be able to respond to an international obligation in a material and sensible way if the views expressed in the amendment are considered sympathetically.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my name has been mentioned twice in connection with this amendment, which I strongly support. The arguments need not be repeated; the onus is now on the Government to disprove the case for clean coal technology, which has been made for a number of years.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and others for the time that they have taken in discussions with me and my officials between Committee stage and now. The meeting we had last Thursday—which ended with us walking out and leaving his advisers talking to DTI
  1558
  officials—was particularly helpful. It provided more light than we are often able to achieve across the Floor of the House. As a result of those meetings, I have twice written to the noble Lord: once on combined heat and power on 29th June, and once on clean coal on 3rd July. Those letters are in the Library of the House.
  Let me restate what I said in the letter on combined heat and power. I can confirm that the Bill already contains a power which would allow the Secretary of State to set a specific obligation for combined heat and power if he wished. That is what subsection (a) of the noble Lord's amendment would provide. This is by virtue of new Section 41A(5)(b) as introduced by Clause 70 of the Bill, which applies to electricity—if that is difficult to find, it is on page 73, line 39—and there is a gas equivalent under Clause 99.
  This subsection provides that the Secretary of State may specify the action which qualifies for the purpose of meeting an energy efficiency target. The effect of this is that he could set an obligation for requiring suppliers to meet energy efficiency targets and specify that the only way of meeting the targets is by installing or otherwise procuring CHP. New Section 41 A(9), and its gas equivalent, removes any possible doubt about CHP being able to count towards targets in this way. But I have to say again that we do not intend to use the powers in this way. This is because we are already putting in place an extensive range of measures in favour of CHP, which I explained in Committee and in my letter.
  I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on 3rd July to explain the context of the Government's policies for clean coal. I can confirm the main points of what I said. The Government's policy with regard to the coal industry should be seen in the context of the Government's central energy policy objective to ensure secure, diverse and sustainable supplies of energy at competitive prices. Our October 1998 White Paper, Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation, highlighted the need for an acceptable level of diversity and saw coal as a main contributor to diversity of UK electricity production into the foreseeable future. That is why the Government were so concerned that distortions in the electricity market were pushing out existing coal-fired plant at the expense of new gas build and undertook a programme of reform to remove those distortions.
  That programme will be complete with the introduction of the new electricity trading arrangements later this year. At that point we will be able to relax the stricter consents policy for new gas-fired power stations that we introduced to safeguard diversity while the reforms were undertaken. We recognise that the restructuring of the market and the lifting of the stricter consents policy will be a challenge for the UK coal industry, and we are in discussion with the European Commission about a programme of state aid to help the industry through this period of restructuring.
  The rationale for government support for cleaner coal technology R&D fits firmly within this policy framework. A key purpose of the R&D programme is

  1559
  to identify the extent to which all the extensive coal resources of the UK can be used as a source of energy in the future. Both coal bed methane and underground coal gasification technology offer some promise to contribute to future energy supply in the longer term if they can be successfully developed commercially on a large scale.
  A further element of the rationale of the programme is the contribution that cleaner coal technology would make towards achieving global environmental goals as part of the climate change programme. My noble friend Lord Hardy is right about that. In the UK, the availability of gas as a fuel for electricity generation means that clean coal does not offer environmental advantages other than over existing coal capacity. Any clean coal plant would probably displace existing coal plant, at some cost and without substantial efficiency gain.
  However, coal used for electricity generation is expected to grow substantially in developing countries and the efficiency gains to be derived from improvements to existing coal plant and the adoption of new advanced cleaner coal technology plant is expected to make a substantial difference to emissions at the global level, again a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. The R&D programme will underpin substantial export opportunities, with business and employment benefits for UK companies.
  But we do not see the need for support for demonstration projects as a priority at present. There are a number of commercially proven cleaner coal technologies available from a number of suppliers, both in the UK and overseas. They do not need to be demonstrated again on a commercial scale and subsidised by the taxpayer. Our funds are best channelled to R&D for more advanced technologies capable of offering substantial efficiency and environmental benefits.
  However, the Foresight Task Force identified a case for demonstration after about 2005, and the Government undertook in their October 1998 White Paper to re-examine the position in about three years' time. We shall honour that commitment and take account of all the points that have been raised in debate, including the potential export benefits.
  I trust that I have given a sufficiently clear statement of the Government's position on the issues of combined heat and power and clean coal to enable the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, not to press his amendments.
  Lord Ezra: I thank the noble Lord for that full statement, which he sent me in writing earlier. So far as concerns CHP, I am pleased that he has confirmed that the Government have a reserved power to introduce specific obligations. It was never my intention to press for such obligations to be imposed at the present time. Obviously the position will remain under review, and if at any time it should be desirable for such obligations to be imposed, no doubt we shall exert suitable pressure on the Government to do so. I am satisfied with the CHP position as the Minister has explained it.
  1560
  However, we part company on the issue of clean coal technology. The Government fully support the concept. They fully recognise the global implications. They support further investment. But, unfortunately, what they will not do is support—what those of us who feel strongly about clean coal technology support—the construction of demonstration plants. Every attempt made so far to bring that forward has failed. We now have a date of 2005 when this matter might be reexamined. I do not find that very satisfying. Nonetheless, at this stage I do not wish to press the point any further. We may come back to it. We certainly will on different occasions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 66 [Modification and abolition of fossil fuel levy]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 68, line 43, leave out subsection (1).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 63 has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 67 [Supplementary]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 69, line 29, leave out from ("cost") to ("referred") in line 30.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 64 has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 69 [Help for disadvantaged groups of electricity customers]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 71, line 43, after ("of") insert ("the conditions of").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 65 has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 70 [Energy efficiency requirements for electricity distributors and suppliers]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 66:
  Page 73, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 28 and insert—
  ("() An order under this section may specify criteria by reference to which the Authority is to determine energy efficiency targets for the electricity distributors or electricity suppliers on whom obligations are imposed by the order.
  () The Secretary of State and the Authority shall carry out their respective functions under this section in the manner he or it considers is best calculated to ensure").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 66, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 67, 88, 89 and 91. Although there are many words in these amendments, I can assure the House that they make only small, important, changes to the energy efficiency provisions of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 66 and 88 do two things. First, they allow the Secretary of State to tell the authority what

  1561
  criteria to use in splitting up the obligations into separate targets for individual suppliers. That means that, rather than leaving it to its discretion, the Secretary of State could tell the authority that individual suppliers should be given a target in proportion to their market share. He could also specify how market share was to be calculated. The Government will be consulting further on all these issues before making orders under the provisions.
  Secondly, consistent with the other provisions of the Bill, they make it clear that the duty to avoid distorting competition is a duty that is to be exercised in the judgment of the Secretary of State or the authority. At present the clauses are silent on the issue of whose judgment is involved.
  Amendments Nos. 67 and 89 make it clear that trading of obligations can take place between gas and electricity obligations holders rather than simply among gas obligation holders on the one hand and electricity holders on the other. That flexibility to trade obligations between gas and electricity is essential to the Government's objective to provide scope for participants in the market to develop the most cost-effective mechanisms for meeting the Government's energy efficiency obligations.
  The same objective gives rise to Amendment No. 91. That provides a power so that the Secretary of State can set one global energy efficiency target that can then be applied separately under the separate energy efficiency provisions for gas and electricity. He can provide for the authority to apportion the global target between gas and electricity and he can specify to the authority how that division is to be made. The reason we have had to introduce a separate order-making power to achieve this arises from the structure of the Bill. In general, the Bill works by amending the existing gas and electricity legislation. This is the case for the energy efficiency provisions. Therefore, in order to have the provision which links the separate gas and electricity legislation it is necessary for it to be a free-standing provision of the Bill. That is what we have done. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved amendment No. 67:
  Page 74, line 34, after ("supplier") insert ("or to a gas transporter or gas supplier (within the meaning of Part I of the Gas Act 1986)")
  1986 c. 44.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just spoken to Amendment No. 67. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 74 [Gas licence conditions]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 68:
  Page 77, line 36, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 76 [Gas transporters]:
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 78, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 74. With regard to Amendment No. 74, the words,
  "it considers it appropriate to do so".
  in Clause 77 provide an enormously wide discretion when one considers the need for the 20 to 25-year investment security required by independent public gas transporters. Independent public gas transporters have only limited opportunities to legally cross-subsidise. If a project fails to meet its target return because its infrastructure has been bypassed by a competitor, the shortfall cannot readily be recovered from elsewhere without breaching licence obligations.
  The only remedy would be to raise prices to the domestic consumers already connected at the site. That cuts directly across the objectives of independent public gas transporters, which have been to achieve lower prices on individual developments through local scale economies. It would also put the authority in breach of its proposed duty to protect the interests of consumers and, if prices were not increased, its current duty under Section 4 of the Gas Act to ensure that licensees can finance the carrying on of their activities.
  Since independent public gas transporters only win the project following an intensely competitive bid process, the outcome could be that the most efficient pipeline operators are punished at the expense of the least efficient. Alternatively, the outcome could be that consumers bear the brunt. Given the enormous width of the clause, it is difficult currently to predict how the discretion might be exercised.
  An independent public gas transporter could win a development by being the most efficient in the bid process but then lose most of the connections, not through its own lack of efficiency, but because of price distortions generally. Given the current duty under Section 9 of the Gas Act for economy and efficiency, this gives perverse incentives.
  The problem is exacerbated with investment already sunk by independent public gas transporters under the current competitive regime. Since the costs are sunk—they could hardly pull up the pipes—the new legislation will have a retrospective effect.
  I turn to the drafting. The amendment seeks to preserve the unfettered discretion which the authority must have by law. It introduces, however, a device whereby the discretion may be exercised in a balanced and informed way by reference to guidelines. I beg to move.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, was the noble Baroness speaking only to Amendments Nos. 69 and 74 and not to the other amendments in the group?
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I was perhaps a little unclear. My intention was not to move

  1563
  Amendments Nos. 69 to 73, but I thought that I had to move Amendment No. 69 in order to get to Amendment No. 74. So I have spoken to Amendment No. 74.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. It does not make life any easier for me but I shall do my best. In order to make my response to Amendment No. 74 comprehensible, I have to refer briefly to Amendments Nos. 69 to 75, which refer to Clause 76. It is important to establish that what we are doing in this part of the Bill is to remove the geographic exclusivity for gas transporters. At the moment they have licensed areas and no one else is allowed to intervene in their licensed areas. We are saying that competition has to have force and that with various provisos set out in these clauses they can no longer have that exclusivity. Clearly, gas transporters do not like that. They would like to maintain the monopoly position that they have had in their various areas. But we think that it is right to have the objective of ending geographic exclusivity by removing the requirement that public gas transporters' licences may not include areas which are specified in the licensing of other public gas transporters. They object because it increases competition. We hope that it will reduce the prices that they can charge. Incumbent monopolies do not like this kind of thing, but we want consumers to benefit from increased competition. I am a little surprised that the Opposition are seeking to challenge any part of this thoroughly capitalist procedure.
  I turn to Amendment No. 74. The clause as drafted is flexible enough to allow the authority to respond to changing circumstances. If the amendment were to be accepted, that flexibility would disappear. I think that giving the authority flexibility to use its judgment, and giving it the ability to protect consumers from being overcharged by incumbents, is a good policy aim. I commend our proposals to the House and I oppose Amendment No. 74.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am disappointed by the Minister's response to Amendment No. 74. I hear what he has had to say with regard to competition and flexibility. However, there is a need to consider the viability of the independent public gas transporters. In order to be in business, they have to invest for a long period. Clause 77 as it stands gives an enormously wide discretion to the authority which they feel is unreasonable.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I realise that I failed to reply to an important point made by the noble Baroness in introducing Amendment No. 74. I apologise for that. She said that the phrase,
  "by the Authority where it considers it appropriate",
  is too broad. That is for a very good reason. We expect the companies to protect their investments, but we
  1564
  expect them to protect their investments by using contracts. In our view, the authority should become involved only when there are disputes.
  I failed to reply to another point raised by the noble Baroness, for which again I apologise. She said that the Bill is retrospective because the pipes are already in the ground. Clause 77 deals with pipes already in the ground. The discretion which the noble Baroness criticised includes the ability of the authority to allow transporters to place conditions on consent which protect their investment if it thinks that it is in the interests of consumers. I think that we have thought this out properly. We have thought about the short-term position, where people have investments and where the threat is that new people can come in, and we have thought about the long-term interests of consumers and the industry.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I hear what the Minister has had to say. We have had a good deal of consultation with the industry on this point. The industry does not feel that what the Minister has said thus far has given it enough assurance. On that basis, when we reach Amendment No. 74, I should like to test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 69.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 70 to 73 not moved.]
  Clause 77 [Restriction on use of certain pipe-lines for providing a supply of gas]:
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 74:
  Page 79, line 3, at end insert ("having regard to any guidelines drawn up by the Authority from time to time in consultation with gas transporters and to the provisions of section 7(8)(b)").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  7.52 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 74) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 102.

  Division No. 4

  Contents

  Attlee, E.

  Kimball, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Lucas, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Buscombe, B.

  Lyell, L.

  Byford, B.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Denham, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Renton, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Haslam, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Home., E.

  Waddington, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Young, B.

  1565

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Amos, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Bach, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Barker, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Judd, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Layard, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Bragg, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Brett, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Burlison, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Carter, L.[Teller]

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Christopher, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Miller of Chilthome Domer, B

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Nicol, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Desai, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Elder, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Ezra, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Simon. V.

  Filkin, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Gale, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Winston, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  8.3 p.m.
  Clause 78 [Construction of pipe-lines by gas transporters]:
  [Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
  Clause 79 [Duty to facilitate competition]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 76:
  Page 80, line 16, leave out subsection (5).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 84 [The gas code]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 77 and 78:
  Page 86, line 13, leave out from ("installed") to end of line 15 and insert ("by an authorised supplier on any premises shall not be used to recover any sum other than a sum owing to an authorised supplier in respect of the supply of gas to those premises or the provision of the meter."").
  Page 86, line 28. at end insert—
  ("(4) In paragraph 23(2), for paragraph (c) there is substituted—
  "(c) exercising a power conferred by paragraph 3(5) or 7(3)(a) (and testing gas fittings, and making any adjustments required for their safe operation, after the exercise of the power)."").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 88 [Altering activities requiring gas licence]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 79:
  Page 94, line 17, at end insert (; and
  () any advice given by the Health and Safety Commission under section 4A (advice about health and safety in relation to gas)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 93 [Information with respect to levels of performance]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 80:
  Page 100, line 6, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
  ("(6) Subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 95 [Financial penalties]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 81:
  Page 102, line 3, at end insert—
  ("(6A) No penalty imposed by the Authority under this section may exceed 10 per cent. of the turnover of the licence holder (determined in accordance with provisions specified in an order made by the Secretary of State).
  (6B) An Order under subsection (6A) shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Borrie, I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 98 [Help for disadvantaged groups of gas customers]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 87:
  Page 108, line 5, leave out ("persons who supply gas") and insert ("authorised suppliers").
  Page 108, line 11, leave out from ("by") to ("provision") in line 15 and insert ("authorised shippers or authorised transporters (as well as by suppliers); and
  (b) in relation to charges payable to suppliers,").
  Page 108, line 27, leave out ("persons who supply or transport gas") and insert ("authorised suppliers, authorised shippers or authorised transporters").
  Page 109, line 12, leave out ("persons who supply or transport gas") and insert ("authorised suppliers, authorised shippers or authorised transporters").

  1567
  Page 109, line 21, leave out ("persons who supply or transport gas") and insert ("authorised suppliers, authorised shippers or authorised transporters").
  Page 109, line 26, at end insert—
  ("(7) In this section and section 4IA "authorised shipper" means a person authorised by a licence or exemption to arrange with any gas transporter for gas to be introduced into, conveyed by means of, or taken out of a pipe-line system operated by that transporter."").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 99 [Energy efficiency requirements fir gas transporters and suppliers]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 88 and 89:
  Page 109, line 45, leave out from beginning to ("that") in line 8 on page 110 and insert—
  ("() An order under this section may specify criteria by reference to which the Authority is to determine energy efficiency targets for the gas transporters and gas suppliers on whom obligations are imposed by the order.
  () The Secretary of State and the Authority shall carry out their respective functions under this section in the manner he or it considers is best calculated to ensure").
  Page 111, line 14, after ("supplier") insert ("or to an electricity distributor or electricity supplier (within the meaning of Part I of the Electricity Act 1989)")

  1989 c. 29.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 102 [Maximum prices for reselling gas]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 90:
  Page 114, line 17, leave out from ("supplier"") to end of line 20.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 91:
  Before Clause 103, insert the following new clause—

  OVERALL ENERGY EFFICIENCY TARGETS.
  (" .—(1) For the purposes of the exercise by the Authority of its functions under either or both of—

  (a) section 33BC of the 1986 Act (energy efficiency requirements for gas transporters and suppliers) and any order made under that section, and

  (b) section 41A of the 1989 Act (energy efficiency requirements for electricity distributors and suppliers) and any order made under that section,

  the Secretary of State may by order specify an overall target for the promotion of improvements in energy efficiency.

  (2) Where an overall target applies in relation to both sections mentioned in subsection (1), the order specifying the target may make provision for the Authority to apportion the target between—

  (a) persons who are gas transporters or gas suppliers (for the purposes of section 33BC of the 1986 Act and any order under that section); and

  (b) persons who are electricity distributors or electricity suppliers (for the purposes of section 41A of the 1989 Act and any order under that section),

  by reference to such criteria as may be specified in the order.

  (3) The Authority shall exercise its functions under the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to which an overall target applies (and in particular its functions relating to the
  1568
  determination of energy efficiency targets) in the manner it considers best calculated to result in the achievement of the overall target.

  (4) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Authority, the Council, gas transporters, gas suppliers, electricity distributors, electricity suppliers, and such other persons as he considers appropriate.

  (5) An order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 92:
  Before Clause 103, insert the following new clause—

  STOPPING-UP OF ROADS AND STREET WORKS ETC.
  (" .—(1) Schedule 4 to the 1986 Act shall apply to an electricity distributor as it applies to a gas transporter as if, in each place where they occur, for the words "gas transporter"
  there were substituted "electricity distributor".
  (2) Schedule 4 to the 1989 Act shall apply to a gas transporter as it applies to an electricity distributor as if, in each place where they occur, for the words "electricity distributor" there were substituted "gas transporter".
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to give gas transporters or electricity distributors the right to install the infrastructure of the other utility subject only to the same limitations placed on that other utility. The amendment does not seek to enlarge existing powers but merely to enlarge the number of entities capable of exercising them. In this case, it would be the owner or occupier, often a developer, who will be able to decide who shall enjoy these rights.
  The Minister will be pleased to hear that this is essentially a probing amendment to gauge the Government's thinking in this area, given that our overriding interests are to save costs as well as to be expedient about the manner in which those works are carried out. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the amendment. Perhaps I may explain the fundamental underlying differences between the gas and electricity provisions with regard to street works. In gas there is a duty on the gas transporter to connect anyone within 23 metres of a gas main. That is an absolute duty and means that there have to be corresponding powers to enable gas transporters to fulfil their duty.
  In electricity there is a duty to connect any person on request, subject to questions of practicality and cost which are reflected in the terms offered for the making of a connection, rather than an absolute right within a prescribed distance of an established part of the electricity distribution network. We believe that it is reasonable to insist that in the 21st century everyone should be able to have access to electricity but it would not make sense to require a transporter to put in several miles of gas main to service one customer in a remote location.
  Turning to the detail of the proposed new clause, if it is designed to align the regimes governing street works under the Gas Act and the Electricity Act by making

  1569
  electricity distributors subject to obligations under the Gas Act and vice versa, this is inappropriate because each Act deals with a defined subject area; namely, gas on the one hand and electricity on the other.
  If the amendment is designed to assist those who are active in both the gas and electricity markets, it is misguided. A company which is both an electricity distributor and a gas transporter will have appropriate rights under the Electricity Act 1989 and the Gas Act 1986 which he should use according to which activity necessitates the street works. If both of them necessitate street works, he will need to exercise rights under both Acts. However, that should not create any problems for a company.
  I should point out that there are other difficulties with the amendment. For example, if the amendment is made workable, there will be a potential for companies to use one Act to exercise rights and, when this proves unsuccessful, to attempt to use the other Act as a way forward. Granting rights under Schedule 4 to the Electricity Act to gas transporters could result in them having more extensive rights to land belonging to third parties than is presently the case.
  On either interpretation of the amendment, it is inappropriate and could lead to damaging rather than helpful consequences.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response and for his clear explanation of the Government's approach here. I shall read Hansard and consider carefully what he has said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 93 to 103:
  Page 132, line 14, at end insert ("; and
  (c) at the end of paragraph (b) there is inserted "; and—
  (c) to any other person who holds a licence and whose interests may, in the opinion of the Authority, be affected by the grant."
  In section 15A (billing disputes)—

  (a) for "domestic customer" (in each place) there is substituted "customer";

  (b) subsection (10) shall cease to have effect.").

  Page 132, line 15, leave out paragraphs 7 and 8 and insert—

  (" .—(1) Section 24 (modification references to Competition Commission) is amended as follows.

  (2) In subsection (1)(a)(i) and subsection (1A)(a), for "required" there is substituted "regulated".

  (3) In subsection (6) for "4 and 4A(1) and (2) above" there is substituted "4AA, 4AB and 4A".

  (4) In subsection (8) for "and 26 below" there is substituted ", 26 and 26A.

  In section 27(3) and (4) (modification by order under other enactments) for "required" there is substituted "regulated".").
  Page 132, line 21, leave out ("inserted") and insert ("substituted").
  Page 132, line 30, at end insert ("33C,"").
  1570
  Page 133, line 5, at end insert—
  (" .In section 36(2) (keeping of register), in paragraph (c)—

  (a) the words "made otherwise than by order" shall be omitted; and

  (b) for "subsection (5)" there is substituted "subsection (7)"").

  Page 133, line 12, at end insert—
  ("() after the definition of "authorised area" there is inserted—

  "authorised supplier" means a person authorised by a licence or exemption to supply to any premises gas which has been conveyed to those premises through pipes;

  "authorised transporter" means a person authorised by a licence or exemption to convey gas through pipes to any premises or to a pipe-line system operated by a gas transporter.").

  Page 133, line 14, after ("6A;";") insert—
  ("() the definition of "domestic customer" shall be omitted;").

  Page 134, line 39, after ("40A,") insert ("42,").
  Page 136, line 23, at end insert—

  (" .—(1) Section 44A (billing disputes) is amended as follows.

  (2) In subsection (2)—

  (a) for "a public electricity supplier" there is substituted "an electricity supplier";

  (b) for "tariff customer" there is substituted "customer".

  (3) In subsection (8)—

  (a) for "public electricity supplier" there is substituted "electricity supplier";

  (b) for "tariff customer- there is substituted "customer".

  Page 136, line 23, at end insert—
  (" . In section 59 (making of false statements etc.) in subsection (2)(a), for "a public electricity supplier" there is substituted ", or other person acting on behalf of, an electricity distributor or electricity supplier"

  Page 137, line 12, at end insert—
  ("Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 (c. 21)

  .—(1) The Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 is amended as follows.

  (2) In section 1(2) (restriction on exercise of rights), for "a public electricity supplier" there is substituted "an electricity operator".

  (3) In section 2(1) (warrants)—

  (a) for paragraph (a) there is substituted—

  "(a) that admission to premises specified in the information is reasonably required by a gas operator or an electricity operator or by an employee of a gas operator or an electricity operator;"; and.

  (b) for the words "supplier or any employee of the operator or supplier" (in paragraph (b) and the words following paragraph (c)) there is substituted "any employee of the operator".

  (4) In section 2(3) for "a public electricity supplier" there is substituted "an electricity operator".

  (5) In section 3 (interpretation)—

  (a) in the definition of "employee", for paragraph (b) there is substituted—

  "(b) in relation to an electricity operator, an officer, servant or agent of the operator and any person authorised by such an agent";

  1571

  (b) for the definition of "public electricity supplier" there is substituted—

  ""electricity operator" means an electricity distributor or an electricity supplier (within the meaning of Part I of the Electricity Act 1989);".").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 7 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 123:
  Page 139, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (7) and insert—
  ("(7) The same associate may not be nominated both for the purpose of sub-paragraph (6)(a) and for the purpose of subparagraph (3)(a) or (b) or (6)(b).").

  Page 140, line 33, leave out ("this paragraph") and insert ("paragraph 1").
  Page 141, line 9, leave out ("9") and insert ("7").
  Page 141, line 22, leave out from ("by") to end of line 24 and insert ("sub-paragraph (2); and
  (b) to the extent mentioned in those provisions as so modified;").

  Page 141, line 43, leave out ("sub-paragraph (2)(a)") and insert ("sub-paragraphs (1) and (2)").
  Page 142, line 16, leave out ("commencement day") and insert ("effective date").
  Page 142, line 42, leave out ("commencement day") and insert ("effective date").
  Page 143, line 1, leave out ("commencement day") and insert ("effective date").
  Page 143, line 32, after ("(2)") insert ("of the 1989 Act").
  Page 143, line 33, leave out from ("2") to end of line. Page 143, line 45, at end insert—
  ("() A scheme under this paragraph shall have no effect in relation to an existing supply licence if the supplier's transfer scheme does not take effect.").

  Page 144, line 2, leave out from ("scheme") to ("which") and insert ("under this paragraph in relation to existing licences under section 6(1)(c) of the 1989 Act").
  Page 144, line 6, at beginning insert—
  ("(1A) A scheme under this paragraph shall provide for each licence to which it relates").

  Page 144, line 14, after ("6(1)(c)") insert ("of the 1989 Act").
  Page 144, line 19, leave out ("under section 6(1)(d)").
  Page 144, line 23, after ("6(2)") insert ("of the 1989 Act").
  Page 144, line 26, leave out ("under section 6(1)(d)").
  Page 144, line 45, after ("expedient;") insert—
  ("() such amendments relating to the revocation of the licence or exemption as the Secretary of State thinks fit;").

  Page 145, line 22, after ("expedient;") insert—
  ("() such amendments relating to the revocation of the licence as the Secretary of State thinks fit;").

  Page 145, line 47, after ("expedient;") insert—
  ("() such amendments relating to the revocation of the licence as the Secretary of State thinks fit;").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are all of a technical and drafting nature. If the House is satisfied, I shall not offer a detailed explanation on each one. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 8 [Repeals]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 129:
  Page 152, line 6, column 3, at end insert ("and in subsection (9), the word "and" preceding paragraph (b)").
  Page 152, line 12, column 3, at end insert— ("Section 15A(10).")
  Page 152, line 36, column 3, after ("subsections") insert ("(3),").
  Page 152, line 44, column 3, after ("(a)") insert (", in paragraph (c) the words "made otherwise than by order"").
  Page 152, line 50, column 3, at end insert ("and the definition of "domestic customer"").
  Page 153, line 49, column 3, after ("subsections") insert ("(3),").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 108 [Power to make transitional provision etc.]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 130:
  Page 118, line 13, leave out from ("enactment:") to end of line 14 and insert ("contained in any Act or subordinate legislation (including an enactment contained in this Act or in any Act passed or subordinate legislation made in the same Session as this Act).";).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.

Business
Lord Bach: My Lords, as consideration of the Utilities Bill is now complete, this evening's Unstarred Question is no longer restricted to the one hour available for business in the dinner break. Instead, a limit of one and a half hours now applies. This change does not affect the time allocated to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, or my noble friend Lady Blackstone, but it increases the time available to each of the other speakers from four minutes to eight minutes. Perhaps I may make it clear, however, that if noble Lords have prepared four-minutes speeches—and I am quite certain that they have—and would prefer to avoid the inconvenience of extending them at such short notice, that will attract: no criticism, I venture to say, not just from these Benches but from the House as a whole.

Voluntary Service for Young People
8.11 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffeasked Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to increase the awareness among employers and young people of the case for taking gap years and undertaking voluntary service.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure to be able to introduce this debate. I must immediately declare an interest as chair of Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO). In my six years as chair, I have seen the real benefits of volunteering to everyone involved: to individuals, to host organisations, and to employers. Not only that, but I believe it is possible to show that there are real benefits for UK foreign policy and for international

1573
understanding in developing the spirit of volunteering, and that there are also benefits for community development and citizenship awareness here at home.
Sadly, too few young people are aware of the opportunities and advantages offered by volunteering, particularly those young people who come from disadvantaged homes; and too few employers recognise the skills that volunteering develops. When the UK's competitiveness depends on developing skills and talents to the full, that is a waste that the country can ill afford. I believe the Government share that view, and I hope to persuade the Minister that there are steps that can be taken to achieve real change.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have indicated that they will support this debate. Your Lordships will be well aware of the varied interests that those noble Lords reflect, and that promises us a fascinating debate—a debate that spans local, regional, national and international interests.
The terms of the debate are deliberately focused not only on international volunteering, which is what I know most about, but also on gap year provision. That is because I have been so impressed by the work of the Year Out Group, whose launch I attended a month or so ago.
This is a group of around 20 reputable organisations which is setting standards for gap year providers. It is supported by the Department for Education and Employment, and promotes the structured year out for school leavers before they go to university or start a job, or for those who choose to take a year out between university and looking for a job.
While I want to encourage the Government to promote volunteering for all age groups because I have seen the massive impact it can have on the lives of all involved, the majority of supporters of any voluntary activities, in this country at least, are largely from older sections of society. That in itself can have a negative impact on young people. That is why it is particularly important to encourage the young—although the National Centre for Volunteering reminded me that a pro-volunteering message is probably best coming not from middle-aged people like me but from sports stars or, even better, from the friends of the youngsters concerned. I entirely concur with that. I know that the Government have given much thought to this, and I welcome their active support, for example, for the youth millennium scheme, and of course for the overseas training programme managed by VSO.
VSO started 40 years ago promoting volunteering for school leavers. Its legacy is warmly remembered by huge numbers of people around the world. There are numerous stories of people who are now leaders in their own countries and communities describing the impact that a volunteer had on their education. It is easy to forget that these volunteers were only 18 and straight out of school.
VSO moved a long time ago to concentrate on professionally skilled and experienced volunteers; but that does not mean that there is not huge scope for young people without that degree of skill or experience
1574
to think of a year out. The demand is very buoyant indeed. The Year Out Group has estimated that the number of organisations offering year out experience for school leavers has grown by 50 per cent in the past two years, to almost 200.
For those thinking of applying to university—again I must declare an interest as chief executive of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals—it is essential that they know that a gap year experience, so long as it is well structured, will be warmly welcomed. It is important to emphasise "well structured". At present, we are talking about only a small proportion of school leavers who become involved in this activity. UCAS estimates that the number of applicants who take a gap year is just under 7 per cent.
Nicholas St Aubyn, who as a Member in another place has been an active supporter of gap year provision, commissioned some research earlier this year which indicated that universities felt that a year out was beneficial. Indeed, many vice-chancellors believe that it could contribute to promoting greater access. They believe that it helps to develop confidence and raises aspirations.
What is particularly important is the standard of offering that is provided. VSO's extensive experience indicates that placements and volunteers have to be thoroughly researched and carefully matched. That is just as true for an 18 year-old school leaver as it is for a middle-aged, qualified and experienced professional.
Young people who do something beneficial, and who can show that there is some structure in the way they have gone about it, are highly sought after by recruitment agencies, employers and universities. But so much more could be done. Employers need to be alerted to the potential. Resourcefulness, innovation and creativity characterise such volunteers, and these are the very qualities that make business competitive.
Even more relevant, such experiences can provide potential employees with a breadth of experience and the skills to adapt to a global business environment. It can provide an understanding of other cultures and other peoples which provide insights into the very markets which will enable UK companies to maintain global excellence. I ask the Minister to do what she can to encourage employers to take up opportunities such as VSO's business partnership secondments. I urge the Minister particularly to encourage the involvement of local authorities, where there is real scope for further engagement but as yet not a lot has happened.
The majority of students who are likely to consider the possibilities and potential of these opportunities, however, are likely to come from well-informed, middle-class families. The very notion of the gap year can evoke a rather traditional middle-class school leaving applicant. Your Lordships will know that that represents a decreasing minority of students entering university. I should like to see increasing links between gap year provision and more mature, experienced higher education applicants.

1575
In commending as I do the work of gap year organisations, just as important is recognition that the majority of school leavers still do not go on to higher education, which means that we must work much harder to attract them. VSO and many other gap year organisations have sought ways to work with those who do not appear to have a sparkling academic future. Experience has shown that the potential value to these people of appropriately designed international volunteering is, if anything, even more influential than for those who are waiting to go to university. There are many powerful examples of those who have been out of work, or in casual employment, since leaving school and whose volunteering experience has given them new aspirations and the confidence and commitment to strive to meet them.
We must work to promote schemes that provide opportunities to young people of all backgrounds and must recognise their skills. Inevitably, that can happen only if the necessary resources are made available. Government departments need a co-ordinated approach to avoid people falling down what often appear to be rather large cracks. For example, the DfEE insists that recipients of grants under the millennium volunteer scheme must demonstrate a benefit to UK communities. That is fair enough. However, DfID funding is not available since the department considers that youth volunteers do not make a valuable contribution to development. Yet the truth is that well run volunteering schemes provide important education and employment benefits. Certainly, they can offer development benefits and raise development awareness. For example, surely the cross-cultural exchange and anti-racist agendas offered by youth schemes are of interest to the Home Office. Since this is an interest that affects at least three different departments, joined-up government is essential in cracking the problem of the funding of youth volunteer schemes. I make no apology for mentioning the need for resources. Young people need to live while they gain experience.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to explore how the benefit system can support the choices of individuals who are sufficiently enterprising to volunteer. I hope that my noble friend will also consider, for example, the case put by the National Centre for Volunteering that the UK's lifelong learning strategy should include credits for volunteer time worked to be added to individual learning accounts. The year 2001 is International Year of Volunteering. I should like to see the Government celebrating it by encouraging a framework that supports gap year activity for all who want to take it up as a contribution not only to the "access" debate but as a means to help deliver the lifelong learning and active citizenship agendas.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for giving us an opportunity to debate the gap year. I look back with enormous happiness to my gap year in which I visited Afghanistan and Iran. I appear to have had a bad effect on those countries. Today it is not easy
1576
to visit such places. That had a strong influence on my maturity and general experience of the world. From my observations, most people who undertake it have a similar experience.
The gap year following school, particularly if one is to go to an assured place at university, provides a very rare opportunity. Rarely does one have a year in which to do as one wishes without interrupting or jeopardising what follows it. The noble Baroness made a very important point in extending the idea to people who were not going on to university. That also applies to later stages in one's career, perhaps when one leaves university or other qualification courses. People in that position, and students generally, have difficulty in facing the uncertainty about whether a gap year will enhance their employment prospects. They may feel that, instead of gaining an advantage, they will fall behind in the employment race compared with their colleagues.
There is insufficient information available to people who look at this particular fence. There is little information provided by companies on the web or elsewhere about how much they welcome people with good gap experience which improves their prospects; for example, that a good gap year is worth a couple of years of relatively menial employment and enhances an individual's opportunities thereafter. Perhaps the Government could put their mind to organising an information resource of that kind. The web provides government with an enormous opportunity to make such a resource available on a fairly broad basis. They could have contributions from several hundred companies in different areas of employment pointing out the advantages of a gap year. That would provide easy access to students. The provision of such information would be fairly cheap. All the Government have to do is provide the information on some web space and tell people where it is. The Government are reasonably good at that anyway.
I was also interested in the observations of the noble Baroness about the Year Out Group. The DfEE appears to be moving towards the accreditation, or at least paying someone else to accredit, gap year courses. Someone who has a gap year has great difficulty in deciding what is worthwhile and what the experience will be like. There are a large number of cowboys out there. For example, there is a happy band of enterprises that appears to consist of merely paid holidays for the children of the rich masquerading as gap years; there is another which consists entirely of work in McDonald's so that individuals can take a holiday in one of the Spanish islands.
Information about the quality of courses and the experience of others would be valuable to students. The Government might find it difficult to become involved in putting their chop on such courses and then taking responsibility when, as sometimes happens, things go wrong and students experience serious difficulties overseas in whatever environment they find themselves. However, if the Government have taken the first step by sponsoring the Year Out Group more can be done in that direction. They might consider sponsoring a charter mark or website on

1577
which students' reactions and histories can be posted so that this year's crop can see the experience of the previous two years. If that is done independently of the providers of such courses it will remove the supposition that the Government are placing their own imprimatur on the quality of the courses.
I have seen so many schools where hardly anybody has taken a gap year. It is not confined simply to the poor who will not do it; there are whole sections of the middle classes, particularly up north, who do not believe that a gap year is part of the experience and focus on the employment ladder. The Government could make a real difference by taking the simple step of helping to make information available in a way that the private sector cannot do easily.
I shall stick to my four minutes, which seems appropriate for a gap debate.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for giving us this opportunity to discuss, however briefly, one of the most important aspects of civil and civilised society: voluntary activity. The noble Baroness listed in an impressive manner some of the benefits of voluntary activity. Such activity responds to needs which otherwise may remain unmet and gives those involved a sense of achievement. It also helps to knit together communities, which perhaps is not the least important of the benefits of voluntary activity.
I should like to deal with a more difficult question. I speak with great hesitation, because I believe that the Minister knows much more about this than I do. I read in a recent report by Community Service Volunteers and Demos that one of the expectations that an individual may have in voluntary activity is that it provides,
"a powerful pathway to social inclusion".
The research that I have seen indicates that it is more an expression of social inclusion by those who are included than an actual pathway to social inclusion. Indeed, the excluded are unlikely to accept voluntary activity as a substitute for the more permanent and stable relationships of employment. That is one of the major problems with regard to volunteering and voluntary activity in general.
I wish to address one aspect of the Question: awareness among employers. I shall not talk about gap years but about voluntary service often of shorter periods. There are quite a few examples of good practice among employers and enterprises. I can speak about them because in no case do I have to declare an interest. They are simply examples of good practice. There is the example of community investment—of companies offering time or payment to institutions in which employees of companies are involved. Marks & Spencer is one such example.
There is the example of companies which allow their employees a certain number of hours, days or sometimes more, for voluntary activity. I believe that Jaguar has the rule that people can engage in voluntary activity for a week each year.
1578
Better still is the example of companies which match the hours that people give of their own time by allowing them to take off time from work to the same extent. Barclays at Leeds is an example.
The most interesting example relates to the professional organisation, KPMG, which has set up, first, a community brokering service which links employees who are willing and ready to undertake voluntary service with opportunities to do so; and, secondly, a time bank to enable employees to draw on a credit of time for voluntary activity thereby encouraging them to engage in such activity.
Those are excellent examples of good practice. The periods involved do not add up to entire gap years. However, such practices encourage voluntary activity, not through government alone, but by companies and employers taking responsibility for communities and society in general.
I cannot resist another comment on the notion of time banks. The concept may sound strange. However, a distinguished and interesting author, David Boyle, has written a book called Funny Money. The funny money referred to is the activity which emerges as a result of people volunteering to help others. It is an advance on the old system of barter in terms of time—"You teach my daughter the violin and I shall repair your garden fence". A wider network is involved and the relationship within which the time is given does not have to be one-to-one. In an interesting recent paper, Mr Boyle sought to devise conditions under which a London time bank could be created. He calls it A vision. But without vision we are unlikely to get far in this area. Indeed, I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, is not with us today. With his advocacy and activity for social entrepreneurs, he would have a great deal to say about those who have the vision to encourage people to make a voluntary contribution to the creation of communities.
That leads me to my final comment. Yes, it is nice to receive encouragement, including encouragement from government. But let us never forget that voluntary activity is voluntary; it is not organised by government or anyone else. It can and should be encouraged, but it should always be the result of people's own initiative rather than a parallel organisation of work.
8.35 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for initiating this debate.
The high priority the Government have given to promoting voluntary activity among young people is greatly to be welcomed. In preparing for this debate, I have read with immense pleasure about the successes of the millennium volunteer scheme.
I recently asked a senior United States government official what was the most obvious difference between the United States and this country. He replied that in Britain people do not starve. We must not lose touch with those on the margins of society. We must remain committed to providing public services which are

1579
available to all, allowing those whom we accept as refugees, those with physical or mental impairments or those who have been abused or neglected to enter into the mainstream if they will.
Community service for young people is an essential means of maintaining that contact. For example, the millennium volunteer project involves, perhaps exceptionally, large numbers of unemployed young people. So on some schemes young people in employment, at college or university, are acquainting themselves with young people who may never have worked and have minimal educational qualifications. The voluntary work connects volunteers with young people from the ethnic minorities, primary school pupils who risk failing at school and children with AIDS.
Over the past 12 months, one of my co-volunteers is an Afro-Caribbean in his 30s who grew up on the Stonebridge Housing Estate in North London. Knowing him and volunteering with young black men in the past not only helps me to understand life from another point of view but also enables me to see what I have in common with people from an ethnic group not my own. While I recognise that many experiences separate us, I can feel that we share some of the same faults and strengths. Indeed, my fellow feeling prompts me to ask why we have no Afro-Caribbean man regularly contributing to deliberations in your Lordships' House. The voluntary work of young people helps to knit together the different communities within society. It not only increases the respect of one group for another, it also promotes compassion. It encourages future electors to support policies that protect and assist vulnerable minorities, and future taxpayers to fund public services more likely to give direct benefit to others rather than themselves.
I conclude by drawing attention to the National Centre for Volunteering, which is working currently with 170 student groups representing 25,000 student volunteers. The centre provides salaried permanent volunteer co-ordinators at some British universities. These help to make volunteering safe, a learning experience and continuous from one student cohort to another.
In the report on early lessons from millennium volunteer demonstration projects, the importance of such support is highlighted twice. It states that,
"where young people have had a successful millennium volunteer experience, many highlight the support given to them by the millennium volunteer project staff as critical".
Salaried permanent volunteer co-ordinators are critical. I hope that the Government will do all in their power to support the National Centre for Volunteering in its work.
8.40 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I, too, am pleased to contribute to the debate and to thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for the opportunity to do so.
One of the key signatures of the Government is that they have made volunteering such a high priority and have put such value on it. The gap year is a unique and,
1580
interestingly, growing element of that. Like my noble friend, I particularly welcome the formation of the Year Out Group. It is a remarkable start in creating new standards and opening new opportunities.
The debate raises wider issues—too wide to be dealt with in five minutes—about the way in which people will learn, work and live in a transnational society. In my personal and professional experience, young people thrive on volunteering experiences. Once they have a taste they want to do more. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the problem is usually finding the right opportunity and information.
It is clear that universities already know the value of volunteering. Parents, students, career services and schools need to know what the university admissions service already knows—that gap-year students are successful. They start fresh, they stay motivated and they succeed. Even though, as research suggests, they have difficulty in adjusting to academic work after being away, their social adjustment is rapid and successful.
In my experience, when a 18 year-old spends a year teaching in a primary class of 60 children in Honduras, knowing that few of them will be in school at 14 and that none of them has any hope of higher education, a high value is put on his or her higher education.
Secondly, parents and students need to know that the skills and attitudes acquired through volunteering at home and abroad literally pay very well. With so many graduates leaving higher education, who is going to stand out? Is it to be someone who has done all his growing up within tertiary education or someone who has been tested by working with refugees at a resettlement centre?
Many employers already know the difference. According to a CSV survey, 80 per cent of the top 500 UK employers affirmed that volunteers demonstrated above average self- confidence, team work and, above all, communication skills. Those are the key skills that the future labour market will need. In London alone two-thirds of employers are currently looking for graduates with generic skills, irrespective of degrees, who can lead, manage and solve problems. And as global players they are looking for graduates with all the extras, particularly the ability to relate to different cultures and speak different languages.
Key skills are sometimes called "soft skills". I cannot understand why because they are so hard, if not impossible, for many young people to acquire. As a way of making the value of volunteering at home and abroad explicit, perhaps I may suggest that the Government consider commissioning a skills audit from the voluntary organisations and the Year Out Group which will aim to chart the skills acquired across the different experiences within the volunteering opportunity and to put new visibility and value on the benefits. With such evidence, employers and parents alike will be left in no doubt of the real value of the time spent. It might even be the start of a new record of achievement for higher education students, which is long overdue.

1581
In respect of young people, I would argue that a structured gap year has the power to change lives. That opportunity should be within the grasp of a wider group of young people. At the moment it remains a privileged choice and the gap organisations are frank in saying that they have difficulty in recruiting in the inner cities. Where there is no personal connection, no family experience and no folk memory of what it means to take such an opportunity, it is difficult to convince people that it is for them; it is something which happens to other people.
Those who have least opportunity to find out and to make a choice have something extra to give not only because of their empathy but because of the skills they bring and the way in which they can relate to people in worse or similar situations. They may also be the very students whose school lives have been narrowly focused and who have not been able to travel abroad or to experience the out-of-school enrichment in the way that many students can these days.
The first step is to convince parents and students of two things: first, that a period of volunteering is a wise investment of time and money; and, secondly, especially if they are going abroad, that it is safe and well supported. I speak with experience of the Project Trust and can say that many of the organisations have a good record of safety and back-up in the countries to which they send volunteers. A skills audit will help the first aspect and some common standards of support and provision will help the second.
I hope that the Government will encourage the Year Out Group to take the student guidelines further and to create that framework of quality which would be so helpful. But I also believe that there is great scope for companies and trusts to be more proactive in helping young people to find the funds which they are sometimes required to provide. They can help in providing organisations to take returned volunteers into the schools to speak from personal experience of what it has meant to them to be able to give to and learn from other cultures and communities.
Finally, I am optimistic that the millennium volunteer scheme will lead the way in creating new scope for active citizenship and new ways of accrediting volunteers with life-wide as well as lifelong skills. The third report of the Skills Task Force recently stated:
"Too many of our workforce, raised in the routine 'jobs for life' culture of the past … lack basic skills, aspirations and self-belief to broaden their horizons through the power of learning … The development of skills and knowledge has never been and should not become the preserve of traditional education institutions or providers".
The development of volunteering in all its forms serves as an antidote to that. But what counts ultimately is not the skills but the aspirations and attitudes inspired with self-belief and the capacity to manage change. With the new citizenship curriculum in place, perhaps we may see a new vocabulary emerge, not of opting out but of opting in to practical citizenship, even communitarianism, both locally and globally.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for introducing this important debate and hope that she will not mind if I concentrate on its volunteering aspect. I do not disagree with a single word that has been spoken thus far but I want to concentrate on certain issues of concern and thus of challenge.
Volunteering is the oxygen of any good society. It is the first building block of a good community. Without community, the prospect of informal volunteering is vastly reduced. That is the truth for many parts of this country because communities have declined so greatly, bringing a decline in informal volunteering.
Informal volunteering is so easily overlooked but it is crucial. The most vulnerable parts of our communities find their place, their role and their contribution within that realm. In the Citizenship Foundation, of which I am proud to be chair, we often say that the most single telling hallmark of the quality of any culture or society is the extent to which every single member can make a contribution to it. One of the dangers of discussions about volunteering and charity is that people can easily slide into the giving and receiving model. The most crucial aim must be that we are all givers and receivers because only then can we have a society in which one feels comfortable.
One must face the fact that, according to the records of the National Centre for Volunteering, volunteering and giving by the under-30s are in serious decline. That is a challenge. One must also face the reality that the charity and voluntary sector are in some senses professionalising. There is a real danger that inadvertently they will diminish volunteering by the group that I am most concerned about and will overlook the crucial contribution made by the less skilled and apparently less competent cohorts in our society.
Very often it is the tea and sympathy which is the most important element in a voluntary organisation. It is the time that people with no professional skills can give to those who need their care and attention that is the irreplaceable core of many, if not most, charities.
Therefore, I end my few remarks by making those warnings and hoping that whatever is done—and I hope that a great deal is done—the sector itself will take the lead. As my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said, this is not a government job. Government is there to help the hoop along, but basically this is something that we do for ourselves. In so doing, we must make every conceivable effort to be comprehensive in drawing in the help and contribution of everyone.
Lastly, in praise of the Government, I believe that the citizenship curriculum, which becomes a compulsory component of secondary education from autumn 2002, gives an opportunity to build in the hearts and minds of young people the wish and desire to be contributors, as well as having the ability, the confidence and the skills to be volunteers.
8.51 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, on finally achieving this debate. I am delighted to support her as one who has worked for years in international development. I apologise to the House that, unavoidably, I shall have to leave before the wind-up speeches.
I declare an interest as a trustee of Christian Aid, which over 40 years ago helped to launch Voluntary Service Overseas. We must remember the Churches' contribution to this whole subject. I, too, had the advantage of working overseas before going to university, and I know many other people whose lives have been shaped by the early experience of living in another community.
My first debate in the House was on the subject of world development and world awareness. I am very pleased to see the emphasis that this Government place on citizenship, as has just been mentioned, and the spreading of understanding of other societies. We must not let current fears of illegal immigration interfere with the genuine wish of the majority to engage with other cultures. The encouragement by government of young volunteers and educational exchanges are essential aspects of this sharing process.
The word "volunteering" has been stretched beyond recognition, and charity employers are still wrestling with the need to maintain standards and a sensible pay structure while generally welcoming the volunteer ethic. That is a subject for another debate. However, there is no real disagreement about the value of the gap year or the year out. Both the NGOs and this Government have fostered a range of initiatives in the UK and overseas through the DfEE, the British Council, the European Union and the volunteer sending agencies, as I am sure we shall hear from the Minister.
As we have heard, the Year Out Group brings together 20 organisations which offer work and teaching opportunities as well as adventure programmes overseas. I mention to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that another recent initiative is the Youth for Britain Worldwide Volunteering website, which searches up to 250,000 volunteer places available worldwide. For the UK, the "yini" website of the Royal Academy of Engineering gives information about its excellent Year in Industry initiative.
In the past, concerns about the value of the year out have been expressed in university departments, especially maths departments and, I believe still currently, music. They see it as something of an interruption. However, I believe that those fears have been allayed. As the noble Baroness said, vice-chancellors surveyed recently have overwhelmingly supported it. The structured year out is becoming more and more popular with universities and companies, which together see the advantage of adding value to education.
Aid agencies generally take the view that young volunteers benefit from gap years more than do their host countries. Many years ago, VSO insisted that
1584
skills were necessary but it has now returned to recruiting young volunteers again. I believe that there is still some debate about that.
Of course, poverty always demands more skills, but in the long term our young people will receive a broader education which will later benefit their own work and the communities that they serve. Mr Peter Brooke's account, in the debate in another place last month, of his own extended family involvement was in itself a remarkable testimony to the success of young volunteers. A phrase used by the agencies is "enriching lives"—I believe that it was used also by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews—which applies to the volunteer and his or her UK community as much as to the host country. The influence of returning volunteers has been essential in spreading understanding about poverty and development in many fields of life, not only in the aid agencies but in the media, community work and education.
The year out still tends to benefit better-off children. One glance at the list of volunteers from Gap Activity Projects shows that a large majority still come from London and the South East. However, as has been said, that is slowly changing and can be changed, even in the inner cities. On the other hand, it can be expensive. That is something that the agencies must watch. I have a nephew—a school leaver—who is about to go to China with the Dorset Expeditionary Society, and I know how hard many young people must work to obtain sponsorship.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that encouraging young people of all backgrounds to take up overseas placements will be a priority because of the enduring benefits that they undoubtedly bring. There is much scope for involving young people from deprived areas in exchanges overseas, and VSO, too, has some experience of that in Hull and North Tyneside. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, about giving and receiving. It must a balanced and equal partnership.
Therefore, supporting volunteers is not only a form of aid: it is now accepted that the UK will gain something from it. Industry is taking the lead, showing much more interest in gap year students and the concept of sponsored volunteering because the skills and experience acquired then prove so useful later on. One should perhaps single out the engineering industry, which is particularly active, with universities such as Cambridge and Surrey positively recommending a year out as a prerequisite of training. Rolls-Royce, a company with offices in, I believe, over 35 countries, has been working closely with the organisation, Gap, and declares,
"a real interest in individuals who have been exposed to other cultures at an early stage".
Sadly, there are always a few hard luck stories which cannot and should not be pinned on the lack of facilities in host countries, as often they are. I know personally of cases where well established charities fail to back up young people in very difficult circumstances, where management or training has failed and the volunteer has been critically ill in an isolated place. I had some experience of that myself as

1585
an 18 year-old in an Australian mission on the River Indus. The gap and year out agencies must give priority to safety and, if necessary, raise their quality of training and administration.
However, professionalism in management must not alter the voluntary basis of volunteering, which motivates young people to take risks and to gain self esteem in a world which often seems to them divisive and exclusive. Finally, I quote Roger Potter, an experienced educationalist and chairman of the Year Out Group:
"In an age that puts more and more emphasis on measured academic qualifications it is more important than ever that we promote less finite challenges that draw from young people their independence, their resourcefulness, their courage and their willingness to explore beyond the boundaries of their immediate experience".
8.59 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for initiating this debate. I feel slightly hard done by, as I believe that I should be listed as a maiden speaker because this is my first speech in any debate as a reinvigorated life Peer, although many of my noble friends told me that that would be ridiculous.
I should like to promote the work of the Year Out Group, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness. It has produced a valuable comprehensive leaflet that puts together the basic questions that do not occur to many people who think about a year out, without promoting any individual organisation. Perhaps the Department for Education and Employment should provide funding for it to be sent out with UCAS application forms. I do not say that in jest. Universities would benefit from more mature students who have some experience of life before they undertake their university education. Students coming straight from school to any form of higher education can find it difficult to acclimatise, particularly if they are far from home.
Gap years are traditionally taken between school and university. However, as many noble Lords have said, although that is a good time to take a gap year, it should not be thought of as the only time to do so. I know students who have taken a gap year between years of their course. That can be valuable and has even been promoted by course tutors for those who are having difficulties and need time to reflect on where their life is going. Perhaps the best time for a gap year is before someone takes on their first job, or even between jobs. I know of a number of people who have entered the City and now want to take a new direction.
The gap year does not have to be spent abroad. I have found that people who have taken gap years have grown in confidence and, most importantly, in their belief in themselves and their sense of independence. When we ask students what their aim in life is, too many of them have no idea. Gap years can combat one of the great threats facing a lot of students; the introspective nature of education. They put their head down and get on with their studies because they are
1586
worried about student debt and the need for a good degree to be able to find employment. Having interviewed people and been interviewed, I have found that employers are often more interested in the other aspects of a CV rather than only the conventional qualifications.
Gap years do not have to be undertaken immediately before or after university, but one problem with leaving it too long is that, as we grow older, we inevitably gain ties and responsibilities, such as mortgages, marriage and family.
Some excellent organisations undertake gap year activities. I shall focus on two. I declare an interest in Raleigh International on two counts. First, I went with Operation Raleigh to Zimbabwe in 1989. Secondly, I was recently asked to be an honorary vice-president. Raleigh International offers safe, structured and constructive work. Its partners in overseas countries receive well-structured projects that can be taken forward. The venturers who go on such expeditions often find it a life-changing experience. That phrase is often used glibly, but I know from having worked as a staff member that some of the venturers who accompanied me on some of the toughest hikes through the Mavuradonha wilderness area in northern Zimbabwe changed their view of where their life was going during that time. Two of them changed their jobs afterwards and one decided to go back to university. The project gave them time to make those decisions, away from the pressures that are so often associated with family and work.
We should not focus only on those who are going to university and those who can afford the large price tag involved in going overseas. Raleigh is doing a lot to offer its activities to a wider range of people, particularly those in deprived areas. It is working with those who have had problems with drugs or have been involved in crime. Such people now make up a significant proportion of those who undertake Raleigh expeditions, which can show them a new aspect of life. One of the members of my expedition had been involved in car crime. When I asked him why he used to do it, he said that he was bored and had no view of what to do with his life. He has gone on to achieve a lot with his life.
The other area that I should like to focus on is student community action groups at universities and other higher education establishments. They are important, because they also expand students' awareness of their own communities. In our divided society, it is very important to get students to look at estates where people's horizons are limited to where they live. It is also important to make people aware that some groups are cut off from the rest of our society, such as the carers of relatives with learning or physical disabilities.
My noble friend Lord Dahrendorf put forward the case that volunteering cannot be prescribed. I remember collecting money for a volunteer group and I was told by somebody, "You shouldn't be doing this. This is a job for the Government". However, obviously, volunteers have a place.

1587
In the very worthy cause of citizenship, the Government should look at giving assistance in relation to two aspects of volunteering: first, in funding the everyday administrative costs of volunteering groups; and, secondly, in helping to make people aware of the very existence of such groups.
Gap years are extremely valuable in providing leaders of volunteer groups which are in short supply. Few of the people I have known who have taken part in volunteering during their gap years have failed to go on to volunteer in the future.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for initiating this debate. It has been interesting. Also, I thank my honourable friend Nick St Aubyn, who was mentioned by the noble Baroness, for the work that he has done in initiating the Year Out Group. That group has taken on the extremely important project of raising awareness.
I was under something of a misapprehension when I first saw the wording of the Question and its reference to employers. I want to return to that point because I saw it in rather a two-dimensional light.
Also, I declare an interest as a patron of an organisation called Cathedral Camps. That is a voluntary organisation. Young people spend weeks during the summer months doing conservation work. Sometimes that is very basic work in cathedrals; for example, clearing out bat droppings from lofty reaches of the cathedrals. More precious and skilful work is also done conserving and preserving some of the finer artefacts of our cathedrals.
I believe that taking a gap year is, and should be—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf—a matter for the individual. People usually take a gap year between leaving school and entering higher education or at the end of higher education courses and before entering the world of work. However, the noble Baroness extended that notion, and rightly so, into young, and sometimes not-so-young, people taking gaps in the course of their working lives.
I was interested in the proposal to increase employers' awareness of the case for taking a gap year. I agree with the noble Baroness about the benefits for young people who take a year out. The noble Baroness said that as long as it is well-structured, then it will be important to them. I am just a touch unnerved by that well-structured approach and the notion that it should be very organised.
Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, I hope that we shall never lose spontaneity. We do not want to lose the efforts of large numbers of young people who think about what they want to do; raise the money; and then go and do their own thing, whatever that may be. It is right that they should receive information about safety and posing to themselves the right questions. Those of us who are mothers whose children have taken gap years have lived on the edge of our seats, wondering whether they have thought it
1588
through properly or whether they are being too adventurous. But that whole essence of adventure is a very important part of a gap year.
An extremely interesting survey of vice-chancellors was carried out by the Year Out Group. Almost 52 per cent of those surveyed agreed strongly with the statement that:
"A structured year out benefits the personal development of the typical undergraduate".
But if one takes into account agreement or neutrality, then a very large number of people agreed that it was beneficial. It is interesting that only 31 per cent of those surveyed agreed that:
"A structured year out is a critical factor in the development of an undergraduate",
and 68 per cent either had no view or disagreed. Some 71 per cent agreed that:
"A structured year out is a benefit to a wide range of students".
Interestingly, 47 per cent agreed that:
"A structured year out is of particular benefit to less advantaged students",
although a fairly large number of those surveyed either did not agree or were neutral on the issue.
The majority of people—64 per cent—did not agree that the Government should fund a structured year and only 20 per cent agreed that the Government should fund it. There is a real issue in that regard as to whether the Government should find ways, perhaps through grant allocation, of helping some people to achieve a gap either before or after study. However, I do not think that any government could afford to provide the wherewithal for a gap year for everybody.
Finally, to the question,
"Is a structured year out better than an unstructured one?",
80 per cent felt that it was.
One of the challenges and questions which came to mind during the debate concerned the reference to business. I believe that there is more that business can do. However, I am concerned about the cost to business. Large businesses are much better equipped to help young people in this way. Medium-sized, and particularly smaller-sized businesses, which I believe comprise over 90 per cent of businesses, would find it difficult to undertake an obligation to provide for gap years for young people.
The establishment of the Year Out Group coincided with the introduction of tuition fees for students. Initially, those who had arranged a year out at that time were to be penalised for deferring entry into university. A group of year out providers came together, made representations to government and successfully persuaded Ministers to resolve the issue. The Year Out Group grew and set about discussing other issues. I believe that that is where its valuable work lies; namely, in ensuring that information about gap years is made available to all students covering safety, welfare and, importantly, the quality of provision offered to young people. The group's aim is to set standards for providers and to improve information given to students.

1589
As regards the experience and skills gained by young people, employers have a part to play. As a Minister once responsible for volunteering, I remember the impressive work by Julia Cleverdon and the organisation entitled Business in the Community. Huge efforts were made, not only to interest employers in the volunteering dimension of young people's lives, but to accept that that experience was relevant to the company. I refer not only to the gap year. When young people are being interviewed for a job, what they have done of their own volition tells the employer a little more and adds another dimension to the character of the young person sitting before them. I believe that a great deal of work has been done to that extent.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, spoke about the importance to employers of volunteering. The word is now fairly widespread. Employers understand that if they have an employee who thinks of others and believes that giving is better than taking, they are more than half way towards having an employee who will be a positive contributor not only to the company but to the community in which they live.
There is another spin-off. Not only are there benefits to young people and their relationship with the community in which they live; the reputation of the company is enhanced. It is no bad thing that there should be benefits all round. Anybody who has been in the business of volunteering knows that the benefits are mutual.
When Minister responsible for volunteering, I was particularly proud that my right honourable friend John Major initiated the "Make a Difference" campaign. He believed passionately that we can all make a difference, whether by giving small amounts of time, money or both. If we look around, there is something we can do to make a contribution.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who had to leave before the end of the debate because of the change in timing, talked about informal volunteering. I can remember being nervous about not becoming too organised about volunteering. It is right that governments should give encouragement. We should all do what we can to raise awareness. However, informal volunteering is essential. We live in a country which has a proud record of volunteering. I think that we sometimes overlook the amount of volunteering which takes place. In the Victorian era and earlier this century there was a great deal more neighbourly volunteering. It was automatic and informal. If somebody needed help, there was somebody to give it. Some of the closeness of families and communities has been lost. We should be mindful of that when we speak of volunteering.
The scope for better and more accurate information is considerable. I believe that the work of the Year Out Group will make a difference in that respect. I agree with much of what has been said, especially the benefits to be gained by the student. However, as I said earlier, I hope that spontaneity will not be lost for those young people who make their own arrangements and benefit very much from taking a gap year either before or after their education.
9.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. Taking a year out between school and university has always been an attractive option. It is right that when young people do so they are making informed choices and that the experience is of genuine benefit for them. The Government want to bring about a step change in the numbers of people of all ages who become involved in voluntary activity. For many young people the opportunity to become involved in the community, either here or overseas, can be a truly formative experience.
UCAS estimates that in 1999 over 20,000 people deferred entry to university. As my noble friend Lady Warwick said, that is around 7 per cent. It is slightly higher in young people who come from professional and managerial groups. I hope that the numbers will increase, especially for those groups that have been rather under-represented in the past. The variety of things that they choose to do is enormous.
People tend to think of gap years as time spent abroad. That is true for some young people but certainly not all. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that gap years can be taken after graduation as well as before going into higher education. However, we have to remember that a year out will not be right for everyone. Some young people will not want to follow that route and we should respect their choices.
I strongly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said; that voluntary activity is "voluntary". I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that it would be a pity if voluntary charity work were to become "professionalised". The Government's prime responsibility is to ensure that young people make informed choices about where to take their year out and how they spend it. We also need to try to make sure that it is well spent and undertaken in a safe environment.
Who benefits from young people taking a year out? Clearly, young people themselves. They learn about people and environments with which they might never otherwise come into contact, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said. They gain experiences that will stay with them for the rest of their lives, that will change their perspectives and raise their aspirations. That is one of the reasons why opportunities for community involvement need to be available to a broad range of young people. They should not just be available to those who have already had the best chances.
As a number of speakers said, employers also benefit. They are able to draw on a pool of young people who have learnt about working with other people and about problem solving and who have gained in self-confidence. Those are the attributes that we do not always learn at school but that employers tell us they value highly. Unfortunately, not all employers recognise those benefits, as the noble Lord,

1591
Lord Lucas, and others made clear. More research on that has been commissioned and we shall be developing a strategy to try to raise awareness among employers, particularly in relation to Millennium Volunteers—something requested by my noble friend and others.
The noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, particularly referred to giving people time to volunteer. In his speech to the Active Community Convention in March this year, the Prime Minister challenged employers to give their employees time off. He suggested that they should have one day off every 18 months to help them undertake volunteering. The Home Office is also funding Business in the Community to set up employee volunteering schemes in cities throughout the country.
There are also benefits to educational institutions where increasingly young people are being asked what they have done in addition to gaining their academic qualifications. I am encouraged by the work that UCAS has done in that regard. When applying to university young people will have to complete a personal statement. If a young person can say that they plan to take a year out and that it will be structured and relevant to the course they want to take, universities will see that as a way of differentiating between candidates, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said.
The personal growth that young people will have experienced when they start their studies will give them a head start among their peers. It was certainly my experience as a university teacher that such young people had a genuine head start.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that many universities already include a section in their prospectuses or on their website acknowledging the value of a gap year. Some already include specific involvement in community or voluntary activities as being desirable qualities of prospective students. I shall certainly encourage UCAS to include this in the template which institutions use as a guide to completing their profiles.
As many speakers have said, there are benefits to the wider community. Young people can be, and often are, valuable citizens within their communities. If they learn what it means now to be a citizen, that is likely to stay with them for the rest of their lives. If they understand the importance of putting something back into the community and develop a sense of being connected with it, they are likely to stay connected and remain active citizens throughout their lives.
That is why the Government have introduced a framework for citizenship education in schools. I am grateful for the support that various speakers have expressed for that. Young people will need opportunities for putting what they have learned into practice, whether or not they go onto higher education.
There are a number of opportunities that are already supported—either directly by the Government or through European funding. One is the Overseas Training Programme. It aims to provide young people,
1592
many of whom may be interested in longer term involvement in development work, with a worthwhile experience in less developed countries. The Overseas Training Programme is largely funded by the Overseas Development Agency and managed by Voluntary Service Overseas. Students are supervised by their academic institution in this country and host partner organisations overseas.
The European Voluntary Service enables young people from EU member states to spend up to a year doing voluntary work. The Youth for Europe Programme arranges international exchanges, seminars, project training and other activities. Projects are based around a theme through which young people are able to discover and explore similarities and differences in their cultures and, in doing so, build up their confidence.
Young people are also being encouraged to volunteer their time in this country. The Government have invested £48 million in Millennium Volunteers to engage young people aged 16 to 24 in voluntary activity. Some 150 projects have already been set up across the country. I am grateful for the support that has been given in the debate for that project. Some 4,000 young people have already joined and over 400 have gained their Millennium Volunteer awards—awards which recognise the personal development of the young person and the benefits they have brought to local communities. To earn those awards, young people have committed 200 hours of their time to a huge range of activity. Young people have been involved in peer education around bullying and drugs awareness; community radio; sports coaching; and improving the environment in both cities and rural areas. These are commendable achievements for young people with busy lives. Many of these young people have not been involved in voluntary activity before.
It is important that the gap year is well organised and provides support for the young person. Like other speakers I should like to praise the work of the Year Out Group. The organisations involved in the Year Out Group are working towards setting clear quality standards and criteria for membership. We very much welcome the commitment they have shown to this and support the group's aims to ensure that young people are able to undertake gap year activities in the confidence that they will be safe and secure. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that I shall look into ways to help distribute the group's leaflets to young people.
I also agree that we should explore ways of involving more undergraduates in voluntary work. A great deal is already being done. We have set up a national mentoring project which is aimed at raising the achievements of 12 to 18 year-olds in secondary schools in education action zones. At present that involves six universities and it is going to be extended from September to a further nine. One of our Millennium Volunteers projects is allowing students to use their voluntary activity as a credit towards their degree course. Again, we wish to see whether that

1593
approach is successful before extending it. There may also be scope to involve students as mentors in the Connexions service.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned the National Centre for Volunteering. The Government are already supporting it. A number of student community action groups are now running Millennium Volunteers projects. We are going to have further discussions how to take that further.
My noble friend Lady Warwick asked about better co-ordination between government departments. It is true that Millennium Volunteers are available only in the United Kingdom, while DfID programmes tend to be targeted overseas. I accept that there is always scope for the better co-ordination of activities. I shall try to pass on to the Ministers involved in this work the need to ensure that they do not neglect the international
1594
dimension. My noble friend also asked me about the benefit system. As that is quite complex, perhaps I may write to her about it.
In conclusion, I believe that our role is to enable young people to make informed choices about what is best and most appropriate for them. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said. I do not believe that it would be right for the Government directly to finance gap years. There are many different ways in which young people can do that. In a sense, part of the challenge for them is to organise that.
This debate has provided us with an excellent opportunity to demonstrate not only the ways in which the Government are supporting these measures but also the steps that other organisations are taking. I thank all the speakers in this debate for what has been a stimulating and very informed exchange of views.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.

  Parliamentary Cost Comparisons
  Parliamentary Cost Comparisons
  Company Acquisitions, UK and France
  Company Acquisitions, UK and France
  BSE in France
  BSE in France
  Gas and Electricity Industries: Consumer Representation
  Gas and Electricity Industries: Consumer Representation
  Bevin Boys
  Bevin Boys
  Electricity Generators: Licence Exemptions
  Electricity Generators: Licence Exemptions
  NMEC: Chairman
  NMEC: Chairman
  Environment Council, 22 June
  Environment Council, 22 June
  Greater London Authority: Rejected Ballot Papers
  Greater London Authority: Rejected Ballot Papers
  Mobile Concrete Pump Vehicle Licence Cost
  Mobile Concrete Pump Vehicle Licence Cost
  Jubilee Line
  Jubilee Line
  Transport for London: Board Membership
  Transport for London: Board Membership
  Transport Council, 26 June
  Transport Council, 26 June
  Firearms Certificates
  Firearms Certificates
  Army Museums: Visitor Numbers
  Army Museums: Visitor Numbers